[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 1384, Issue 1
Rick Maltese
malteserick at gmail.com
Wed Aug 28 16:22:06 CDT 2013
I have Bob Applebaum known as a troll on Atomic Insights blog
calling Hormesis a pseudo-science and that I am unethical to suggest it has
validity. See
http://deregulatetheatom.com/2013/08/more-clarity-about-fukushima-from-rational-rod-adams/
He seems to think he's an expert.
Rick
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:00 PM, <radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu>wrote:
> 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. Fwd: Fwd: [New post] Radiation emitters Mixing Apples
> (External) and Oranges (Internal) (Chris Alston)
> 2. Re: Dose conversion in beta exposure readings at Fukushima
> Daiichi ? (Jaro Franta)
> 3. Plutonium Mountain (KARAM, PHILIP)
> 4. Neutron Generator regulations (Rees, Brian G)
> 5. Re: Neutron Generator regulations (Stroud - CDPHE, Ed)
> 6. Re: Fwd: Fwd: [New post] Radiation emitters Mixing Apples
> (External) and Oranges (Internal) (John R Johnson)
> 7. Re: Neutron Generator regulations (roseb at gdls.com)
> 8. Re: Neutron Generator regulations (JPreisig at aol.com)
> 9. Re: Fwd: Fwd: [New post] Radiation emitters Mixing Apples
> (External) and Oranges (Internal) (Dean Crouch)
> 10. Re: Neutron Generator regulations (JPreisig at aol.com)
> 11. Re: Neutron Generator regulations (Scott Davidson)
> 12. Re: Neutron Generator regulations (Stroud - CDPHE, Ed)
> 13. Re: Neutron Generator regulations (Doug Aitken)
> 14. Re: Neutron Generator regulations (Dr. Francis Y. Tsang)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:07:34 -0400
> From: Chris Alston <achris1999 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Fwd: [New post] Radiation emitters Mixing
> Apples (External) and Oranges (Internal)
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <CAADHP=Nwibv0F-SLK9OUgjyZgKb6m5NxBXHo+uBdc=
> w+9CyL4A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Roger
>
> I suspect that he simply does not understand the issues, and/or the
> facts. He, himself, basically makes the point that K-40 is in most
> everything we eat, but then shoots himself in the foot in thinking
> that Cs-137 (a K-analogue) is more dangerous, even though the t1/2 is
> orders of magnitude shorter than that of K-40, and the gamma emissions
> are much lower energy.
>
> Cheers
> cja
>
> P.S. In no sense does Cs-137 have a longer t1/2 than radium (Ra-226,
> physical t1/2 ~= 1600 y).
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Roger Helbig <rwhelbig at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:07 AM
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: [New post] Radiation emitters Mixing Apples
> (External) and Oranges (Internal)
> To: RADSAFE <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>But the cesium which was
> scattered all over the place by above-ground
> nuclear tests and the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents has a much
> longer half life, and can easily contaminate food and water supplies.
> As the New York Times notes:
> Over the long term, the big threat to human health is cesium-137,
> which has a half-life of 30 years.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:54:21 -0400
> From: Jaro Franta <jaro_10kbq at videotron.ca>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Dose conversion in beta exposure readings at
> Fukushima Daiichi ?
> To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List'" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <000001cea356$d71a40e0$854ec2a0$@ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> The latest TEPCO handouts include the first I have seen that reports
> analysis results on tritium.
>
> The data is NOT for the recent water leak around the H-area storage tanks,
> but nevertheless provides a useful indication of a typical ratio of tritium
> versus other nuclide activity.
> In this case the ratio is about 39.2 relative to Cs137 (using 2000/51 for
> ?North side of Unit 1-4 water intake channel?).
>
> Taking the tank water results published earlier ? 100 Bq/cc of Cs137 ? and
> including the 15.8 depletion factor from the Cs stripping process -- the
> tritium activity should be about 39.2 x 15.8 x 100 = 61,960 Bq/cc.
>
> As noted earlier, total fission product beta based on Sb125 ratio should
> be 242 x 71 Bq/cc = 17,202 Bq/cc.
>
> Adding 61,960 Bq/cc tritium and 17,202 Bq/cc fission product beta yields
> 79,163 Bq/cc total beta ? virtually identical to the ?All ?? figure of
> 80,000 Bq/cc originally reported for the tank water.
>
> Is it just coincidence that the numbers match ? ?seems unlikely.
>
>
> http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/smp/2013/images/2tb-east_13082601-e.pdf
>
>
> Jaro
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
> radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jaro Franta
> Sent: August-26-13 10:34 AM
> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Dose conversion in beta exposure readings at
> Fukushima Daiichi ?
>
> Thanks Jim,
>
> I am not familiar with conversion factors for deriving skin dose expressed
> as dose equivalent.
>
> Is there a decent on-line reference somewhere, please ? (PS. I?m not an
> HP, but judging by the number of responses to my question, that doesn?t
> seem to make much difference?)
>
> Also, is it normal practice to leave people guessing about what sort of
> interpretation is the correct one, rather than simply spelling out what it
> is that?s being published ?
>
>
> Jaro
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
>
> From: Jim Hardeman [mailto:jim.hardeman at gmail.com]
> Sent: August-26-13 10:13 AM
> To: jaro_10kbq at videotron.ca
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Dose conversion in beta exposure readings at
> Fukushima Daiichi ?
>
>
>
> Jaro --
>
>
>
> Yeah, I was thinking that Sr-90 and Pu-241 might make a significant
> contribution.
>
>
>
> Looks as if the Japanese were PERHAPS a bit more rigorous in performing
> their dose estimates than I originally thought. I'm interpreting TEPCO's
> latest as being (shallow) skin dose expressed as dose equivalent as opposed
> to organ dose to the skin. Is that your interpretation as well?
>
>
>
> Jim?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Jaro Franta <jaro_10kbq at videotron.ca>
> wrote:
>
> Additional instrument info posted by Tepco today:
>
> "Measurement device: Shallow ionization chamber survey meter (AE-133B)"
>
> Also, the same four high dose rate numbers listed previously as "?+? ray"
> are now listed as "Dose equivalent rate measured from 70?m (? ray)"
>
>
> http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/handouts/2013/images/handouts_1308<
> http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/handouts/2013/images/handouts_130823_05-e.pdf
> >
> 23_05-e.pdf
>
>
>
> Jaro
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jaro Franta
>
> Sent: August-23-13 7:53 PM
> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Dose conversion in beta exposure readings at
> Fukushima Daiichi ?
>
> Jim, I will save you the time:
>
> Here are the results of SNF decay after 2.49y, obtained using the
> SpentFuelExplorer java tool, by K. Sorensen.
>
> One is in pie chart form, the other a table:
>
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11686324/SNF_2%2C49y_old.JPG
>
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11686324/SNF_2%2C49y_old_table.JPG
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jaro
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
> From: Jim Hardeman [mailto:jim.hardeman at gmail.com]
> Sent: August-23-13 9:02 AM
> To: jaro_10kbq at videotron.ca
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Dose conversion in beta exposure readings at
> Fukushima Daiichi ?
>
> Jaro --
>
> It's unclear to me that what TEPCO calls "all Beta" is tritium -- I think
> it's more likely to be a gross beta measurement, which would include both
> Cs-134 and Cs-137 and any other non-volatile beta-emitters in the water.
> This long after the incident, I'd have to do some decay calculations to see
> what I would "expect" to be in the water, but the Cs isotopes, while
> certainly the most prominent, aren't the only ones.
>
> Jim
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Jaro Franta <jaro_10kbq at videotron.ca>
> wrote:
> Tepco's latest analysis results:
>
> Aug 23, 2013 - Sampling Results Regarding the Water Leak at a Tank in the
> H4
> area in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station
>
>
> http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/smp/2013/images/south_discharge<
> http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/smp/2013/images/south_discharge_130823-1e.pdf
> >
> _130823-1e.pdf
>
> ....where the "All beta" numbers are much closer to the Cs numbers -
> suggesting but not confirming that the 80kBq/cc in the leaked water from
> tank no.5 is largely tritium (these latest results sample nearby "drainage
> channel B", not the water from the tank..)
>
>
> Jaro
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jaro Franta
> Sent: August-22-13 9:41 AM
> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Dose conversion in beta exposure readings at
> Fukushima Daiichi ?
>
> A search on Tepco's web site turned up this reference document:
>
> Radiation Monitoring at the site - measuring method (November 19, 2011)
> http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/images/handouts_111119_04-e.pdf
>
> Some of the more interesting slides:
>
> Slide 7: Estimation of Sv/h from Bq/cm2
>
> Quote: "In the case of Cs-137 contamination radius (40cm), Distance (1m):
> 13,000cpm = approx. 0.04 Sv/h"
>
> ..presumably this conversion applies only to gamma ?
> (...yet in their table published this week, they report beta + gamma dose
> rates of ~100 mSv/h, with only a tiny fraction of that being gamma)
>
>
> Slide 9: Radiation Meter for contamination measurement (GM Survey Meter)
> Slide 11: External exposure evaluation measure Slide 15: Beta nuclide
> measurement (Tritium)
>
>
> Tepco report slide:
> http://db.tt/UfPU1FpJ
>
>
> Jaro
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jaro Franta
> Sent: August-21-13 2:57 PM
> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Dose conversion in beta exposure readings at
> Fukushima Daiichi ?
>
> Thanks Jim,
>
> Its important to get to the bottom of this bizarre dose rate reporting.
>
> Here's why: According to Reuters,
>
> "Water in the latest leak is so contaminated that a person standing close
> to
> it for an hour would receive five times the annual recommended limit for
> nuclear workers."
>
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/us-japan-fukushima-severity-idUSBR<
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/us-japan-fukushima-severity-idUSBRE97K02B20130821
> >
> E97K02B20130821
>
> ......how on earth does one get "five times the annual recommended limit
> for
> nuclear workers" from an external beta dose ?
> ......and how does one even calculate a dose rate in mSv/h from an
> instrument reading of beta radiation in the environment ?
>
> Jaro in Wonderland
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Jim Hardeman [mailto:jim.hardeman at gmail.com]
> Sent: August-21-13 10:49 AM
> To: jaro_10kbq at videotron.ca
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Dose conversion in beta exposure readings at
> Fukushima Daiichi ?
>
> Jaro --
>
> My GUESS is that what TEPCO is talking about isn't an actually dose rate
> MEASUREMENT, but a dose rate ESTIMATE performed with some sort of GM tube /
> counter with a removable beta shield -- something like the old HP-270 "hot
> dog probe". Seems to me that they're simply reporting open window readings
> as "beta + gamma" and closed window readings as "gamma". I doubt they're
> doing much in the way of making beta dose rate conversions.
>
> My $0.02 (US -- don't know what that is these days in Canadian)
>
> Jim Hardeman
> jim.hardeman at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Jaro Franta <jaro_10kbq at videotron.ca>
> wrote:
> Here's a question about exposure/dose rate numbers reported by Tepco at the
> FD contaminated water storage tank farm earlier this week.
>
> A picture from Tepco's pdf document is linked below.
>
> Of interest are the sample analysis results for "Leakage water" in the
> table
> at bottom left, reported in Bq/cm3: Note especially the "All beta" figure
> of 8.0E+4 figure.
>
> The curious part is the table at right, which lists dose rates at various
> points around the site in mSv/h - for either "beta + gamma" or gamma alone:
> the highest number being ">100 mSv/h" for "beta + gamma" at point #1, and
> similar values for points 10, 11, and 12.
>
> My question is how does one apply dose conversion factors to instrument
> readings, to derive "beta + gamma" dose rates in mSv/h ? ..which look to be
> mostly beta, if one deducts the gamma-only number in the right column.
>
> This is clearly not a case of committed dose due to radionuclides absorbed
> in the body. So what is it ? ..if its simply a conversion of instrument
> beta
> particle count rate, what sort of conversion factor would one apply to
> betas
> from tritium, to get mSv/h ?
>
> And although its not explicitly stated, the activity numbers in the lower
> table suggest that much of the 8.0E+4 Bq/cm3 activity is tritium, with very
> low beta energy (this water was used for cooling the damaged reactors, and
> circulated in a closed loop through filters that remove much of the fission
> products, but not the tritium..)
>
>
> Tepco report slide:
> http://db.tt/UfPU1FpJ
>
> Thanks
>
> Jaro
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:58:19 +0000
> From: "KARAM, PHILIP" <PHILIP.KARAM at nypd.org>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Plutonium Mountain
> To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List'" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <B613ACC2CEBC364D915CEE143FE33C3B01CF3A at S1PPXM04.nypd.finest>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Just stumbled across an interesting report on US/Russian efforts to secure
> fissionable materials in Kazakhstan - at this URL:
> http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/23327/plutonium_mountain.html
>
> Haven't read it yet, but it certainly looks interesting.
>
> Andy
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:22:20 +0000
> From: "Rees, Brian G" <brees at lanl.gov>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Neutron Generator regulations
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <
> CA4A483E8E62C54F805C16CC581D80255C6D6307 at ECS-EXG-P-MB05.win.lanl.gov>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> What are the regulations regarding an electronic neutron generator?
> Something like a D-D fusion type. It's possible to make one in a
> reasonably well equipped lab, so if someone did, what licensing and use
> regulations would apply?
> Regulations on an x-ray machine are fairly clear (and they're MUCH more
> common! - both the machines, and regs!).
> I realize that "standard radiation dose limits" would apply, but most of
> the regulations I see are associated with the Tritium content of a D-T
> generator, is there anything special someone would have to do if they made
> a D-D neutron generator?
>
> And yes, I realize that if it was done in a DOE facility their rules would
> apply.
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Brian Rees
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:37:07 -0600
> From: "Stroud - CDPHE, Ed" <ed.stroud at state.co.us>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Neutron Generator regulations
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <CAKVyaOzWE5VhOP9+ODSSdsxunaZiM6Y-o5CZ981FiO5pYjY1=
> A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi Brian,
> In Colorado, we have a company that manufactures both D-T and D-D
> generators, as well as licensees that use them. And, in Colorado, we
> require end users of both types of generators to possess a radioactive
> materials license. Why? Because these devices can generate lethal levels of
> neutron radiation, and both will "make" activation products as soon as you
> turn them on. If you wish, I'd be happy to discuss the details.
>
> Ed Stroud, Compliance Lead
> Radioactive Materials Unit
> Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
> 303-692-3418
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Rees, Brian G <brees at lanl.gov> wrote:
>
> > What are the regulations regarding an electronic neutron generator?
> > Something like a D-D fusion type. It's possible to make one in a
> > reasonably well equipped lab, so if someone did, what licensing and use
> > regulations would apply?
> > Regulations on an x-ray machine are fairly clear (and they're MUCH more
> > common! - both the machines, and regs!).
> > I realize that "standard radiation dose limits" would apply, but most of
> > the regulations I see are associated with the Tritium content of a D-T
> > generator, is there anything special someone would have to do if they
> made
> > a D-D neutron generator?
> >
> > And yes, I realize that if it was done in a DOE facility their rules
> would
> > apply.
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> > Brian Rees
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:40:42 -0700
> From: John R Johnson <idiasjrj at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Fwd: [New post] Radiation emitters
> Mixing Apples (External) and Oranges (Internal)
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAJ-ykucmiRPVXxRixMD1YMTmFC5mrFbQ3oP1PL9GMunbzVEDvQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> CJA
>
> And K-40 is a naturally occurring radionuclide and mammals need potassium
> to live!
>
> JRJ
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Chris Alston <achris1999 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Roger
> >
> > I suspect that he simply does not understand the issues, and/or the
> > facts. He, himself, basically makes the point that K-40 is in most
> > everything we eat, but then shoots himself in the foot in thinking
> > that Cs-137 (a K-analogue) is more dangerous, even though the t1/2 is
> > orders of magnitude shorter than that of K-40, and the gamma emissions
> > are much lower energy.
> >
> > Cheers
> > cja
> >
> > P.S. In no sense does Cs-137 have a longer t1/2 than radium (Ra-226,
> > physical t1/2 ~= 1600 y).
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Roger Helbig <rwhelbig at gmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:07 AM
> > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: [New post] Radiation emitters Mixing Apples
> > (External) and Oranges (Internal)
> > To: RADSAFE <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>But the cesium which was
> > scattered all over the place by above-ground
> > nuclear tests and the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents has a much
> > longer half life, and can easily contaminate food and water supplies.
> > As the New York Times notes:
> > Over the long term, the big threat to human health is cesium-137,
> > which has a half-life of 30 years.
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:55:55 -0400
> From: roseb at gdls.com
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Neutron Generator regulations
> To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <
> OF371E6968.FA979576-ON85257BD4.0070CA90-85257BD4.0072FB91 at gdls.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Brian:
>
> The governing regulations depend on where the neutron generator is located
> or used, I assume you are inquiring about a generator that will be used in
> the US that is not used on a federal enclave, exclusive federal
> jurisdiction, DoD or DOE jurisdiction.
>
> In Michigan, the governing regulations are:
>
> MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IONIZING RADIATION RULES
> (in-general)
> Part 11 Particle Accelerator Installations (specifically, includes
> deuteron accelerators)
> Part 13 Miscellaneous Sources (if Part 11 not applicable)
> http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3312_4120_4244-10069--,00.html
>
> In Illinois, the governing regulations are:
>
> Title 32: Energy, Chapter II: Illinois Emergency Management Agency,
> Subchapter B: Radiation Protection (in-general)
> Part 390 Particle Accelerators (specifically)
> https://iema.illinois.gov/iema/legal/regs/RegChart.asp
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Rees, Brian G" <brees at lanl.gov>
> Sent by: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu
> 08/27/2013 04:22 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 ] Neutron Generator regulations
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What are the regulations regarding an electronic neutron generator?
> Something like a D-D fusion type. It's possible to make one in a
> reasonably well equipped lab, so if someone did, what licensing and use
> regulations would apply?
> Regulations on an x-ray machine are fairly clear (and they're MUCH more
> common! - both the machines, and regs!).
> I realize that "standard radiation dose limits" would apply, but most of
> the regulations I see are associated with the Tritium content of a D-T
> generator, is there anything special someone would have to do if they made
> a D-D neutron generator?
>
> And yes, I realize that if it was done in a DOE facility their rules would
> apply.
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Brian Rees
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:06:04 -0400 (EDT)
> From: JPreisig at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Neutron Generator regulations
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Message-ID: <c4ef3.58de603b.3f4e6ebc at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Hi,
>
> Don't know much about neutron generator regulations. Perhaps the
> gentleman who works for Schlumberger could address the regulation
> question.
>
> The deuterium on tritium neutron generator produces something like 15
> MeV neutrons. The deuterium on
> deuterium neutron generator produces something like 2 MeV neutrons. Such
> generators are commercially available from Schlumberger or perhaps GE
> (Largo, Florida). Other neutron generator manufacturers are sometimes
> given in
> the American Institute of Physics Annual Physics Instrumentation/Supply
> catalog.
> Cruise the internet also. Some neutron generators can produce D/D or D/T
> reactions. The voltage/Energy
> of D/T ions is something like 20 to 50 keV. In 1978, a neutron generator
> from Schlumberger cost $5K.
> (just the tube, not the other electronics). The books by Segre or Kaplan
> on Nuclear Physics should be helpful. For the Health Physics of the
> neutrons, see Accelerator Health Physics by Patterson and Thomas or
> perhaps the
> course notes by Cossairt.
>
> A typical tube works as follows. The deuterium or tritium is stored
> in a getter/sorber material such as filament made of zirconium or uranium.
> A slight voltage is applied to the filament and the D or T gas is
> emanated. The gas is D2 or T2 and then usually ionized using a Penning
> Ion Arrangement. The ions are then accelerated across the 20 to 50 keV
> gap,
> and the ions crash into a carbon target (possibly backed by a Titanium ???
> disk as I recall). The neutrons are produced by D,T collisions. The
> neutron generator tube is under vacuum, and has a main cylindrical body
> made of
> glass, or lately, ceramic.
>
> One can detect the neutrons with a remball, Snoopy, Anderson-Braun,
> Long Counter or perhaps even a Bonner Multisphere Spectrometer (if one
> wants
> to see the actual neutron spectrum as a function of energy). I have sent
> numerous email posts to Radafe about Bonner Multisphere Spectrometry. One
> can analyze the Bonner data using BON4/BON5, or other unfolding codes.
> Such
> neutron unfolding codes are available from RSICC (Radiation Shielding
> Information Center, ORNL, Oak Ridge, Tennessee). BON4/BON5 has crappy
> plotting
> software, so you may want to plot the output flux-density data by hand or
> with Grapher or another plotting code. LOUHI and MAXED are some other
> unfolding codes.
>
> The neutron generator can give off a fairly large flux density at a
> fairly high energy, so the generator tube must be shielded. At
> Schlumberger
> (Princeton Junction, New Jersey USA) there a whole neutron generator test
> building. Be careful!!!!
>
> If you are building the neutron generator in a glass cylinder, then it
> is useful to connect the glass to Kovar rings which are welded to the rest
> of the metal assembly. The Kovar rings are fused to the glass cylinder
> using a lathe by a guy with glass-blowing skills. Using ceramic envelopes
> might be simpler.
>
> Electronically, the high voltage stage must be isolated from the
> filament electronics using insulators (ceramics also???).
>
> Questions, just email me. A schematic of a neutron generator might be
> found online. Schlumberger's neutron generator was called a Minitron.
> The QC Tech at EMR Photoelctric used to fondly refer to the tubes as a
> Bitchitron. (They were hard to make and get through electronic testing.)
>
> These neutron generator tubes go down oilwells in a Sonde along with
> gamma/XRay detectors. The neutron generators send out neutrons into the
> rocks/soil and the photomultiplier tube detects the returning gamma/XRay
> signals (n, gamma or whatever reaction). Nowadays I hear the neutron
> generators
> are part of Measurement While Drilling (MWD not MWD), in which such
> measurements are made while the oil well is being drilled.
>
> Regards, Joe Preisig
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 8/27/2013 4:23:09 P.M. E,astern Daylight Time,
> brees at lanl.gov writes:
>
> What are the regulations regarding an electronic neutron generator?
> Something like a D-D fusion type. It's possible to make one in a
> reasonably
> well equipped lab, so if someone did, what licensing and use regulations
> would
> apply?
> Regulations on an x-ray machine are fairly clear (and they're MUCH more
> common! - both the machines, and regs!).
> I realize that "standard radiation dose limits" would apply, but most of
> the regulations I see are associated with the Tritium content of a D-T
> generator, is there anything special someone would have to do if they
> made a D-D
> neutron generator?
>
> And yes, I realize that if it was done in a DOE facility their rules would
> apply.
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Brian Rees
> _______________________________________________
> 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, 28 Aug 2013 08:19:43 +0800
> From: Dean Crouch <d.crouch at allclasshazmat.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Fwd: [New post] Radiation emitters
> Mixing Apples (External) and Oranges (Internal)
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAEu2bPYO0nvqAhv5k3Spaen-GXezdAKgKabKcPc87_kua00YpQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> On the plus side:
> "But internal emitters steadily and continuously emit radiation for as
> longas the particle remains radioactive, or until the person dies ?
> *whichever occurs first*. As such, they are much more dangerous."
>
> So I've got 130 Cubic metres of oil & gas NORM (~1000Bq/g) from a client to
> get rid off. If we could marry that disposal operation with a friendly
> state that still has the death penalty I could "neutralise" the
> Radium-226/228 by inserting into a deathrow-er and then waiting for it to
> stop emitting when the person expires. Perhaps the same argument would work
> for all the nuclear fuel waste that Greenpeace keeps calling "intractable".
>
> This is quite a boon for the industry, we owe him a beer at the very least.
>
> Dean Crouch
>
> BSc (Applied Physics), MARPS, Dip OHS
>
> All Class Hazardous Materials Services Pty Ltd
>
> Mobile: +61 410 637 994
>
> Email: d.crouch at allclasshazmat.com.au
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:40 AM, John R Johnson <idiasjrj at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > CJA
> >
> > And K-40 is a naturally occurring radionuclide and mammals need potassium
> > to live!
> >
> > JRJ
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Chris Alston <achris1999 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Roger
> > >
> > > I suspect that he simply does not understand the issues, and/or the
> > > facts. He, himself, basically makes the point that K-40 is in most
> > > everything we eat, but then shoots himself in the foot in thinking
> > > that Cs-137 (a K-analogue) is more dangerous, even though the t1/2 is
> > > orders of magnitude shorter than that of K-40, and the gamma emissions
> > > are much lower energy.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > cja
> > >
> > > P.S. In no sense does Cs-137 have a longer t1/2 than radium (Ra-226,
> > > physical t1/2 ~= 1600 y).
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Roger Helbig <rwhelbig at gmail.com>
> > > Date: Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:07 AM
> > > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: [New post] Radiation emitters Mixing Apples
> > > (External) and Oranges (Internal)
> > > To: RADSAFE <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>But the cesium which was
> > > scattered all over the place by above-ground
> > > nuclear tests and the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents has a much
> > > longer half life, and can easily contaminate food and water supplies.
> > > As the New York Times notes:
> > > Over the long term, the big threat to human health is cesium-137,
> > > which has a half-life of 30 years.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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, 28 Aug 2013 01:00:34 -0400 (EDT)
> From: JPreisig at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Neutron Generator regulations
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Message-ID: <1faa.309922e1.3f4eddf2 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Dear Brian Rees/Radsafe:
>
> If you look around at LANL hard enough, there are probably a few
> neutron generators at LANL, that one
> might possibly use somewhat.
>
> Joe Preisig
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 8/27/2013 4:23:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> brees at lanl.gov writes:
>
> What are the regulations regarding an electronic neutron generator?
> Something like a D-D fusion type. It's possible to make one in a
> reasonably
> well equipped lab, so if someone did, what licensing and use regulations
> would
> apply?
> Regulations on an x-ray machine are fairly clear (and they're MUCH more
> common! - both the machines, and regs!).
> I realize that "standard radiation dose limits" would apply, but most of
> the regulations I see are associated with the Tritium content of a D-T
> generator, is there anything special someone would have to do if they
> made a D-D
> neutron generator?
>
> And yes, I realize that if it was done in a DOE facility their rules would
> apply.
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Brian Rees
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 11
> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:55:32 -0400
> From: Scott Davidson <bsdnuke at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Neutron Generator regulations
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <CAOrSJC1D27jArnRSWbhyGKXQmQq-h7_G+N=
> vTmupCB67_DVUAA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Group If you do not have the radioactive source, then there is no
> RAM licensing but there may be registration for particle accelerators in
> state radiation protection regulations.
>
> Also, OSHA applies to all occupational hazards from machine sources of
> radiation. 29CFR1910.9 Compliance duties owed to each employees would
> apply for training. 29CFR1910.1096 Ionizing radiation would apply for the
> radiation protection requirement with a caveat that OSHA has not changed
> since ca. 1970 so be prepared for things like 3 rem per calendar quarter
> and 5(N-18) and some differences on definitions of radiation areas, etc.
>
> Scott
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Rees, Brian G <brees at lanl.gov> wrote:
>
> > What are the regulations regarding an electronic neutron generator?
> > Something like a D-D fusion type. It's possible to make one in a
> > reasonably well equipped lab, so if someone did, what licensing and use
> > regulations would apply?
> > Regulations on an x-ray machine are fairly clear (and they're MUCH more
> > common! - both the machines, and regs!).
> > I realize that "standard radiation dose limits" would apply, but most of
> > the regulations I see are associated with the Tritium content of a D-T
> > generator, is there anything special someone would have to do if they
> made
> > a D-D neutron generator?
> >
> > And yes, I realize that if it was done in a DOE facility their rules
> would
> > apply.
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> > Brian Rees
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 06:22:27 -0600
> From: "Stroud - CDPHE, Ed" <ed.stroud at state.co.us>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Neutron Generator regulations
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <CAKVyaOzA5i7AX41RPy3iFfrsVDEa91b8BN2GYrk=
> ky9_EfivWA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Scott,
> As I mentioned in my previous posting, Colorado requires a radioactive
> materials license for use of all neutron generators regardless of type. The
> same rule applies to cyclotrons. The reasoning behind this decision is that
> radioactive materials are produced as soon as you energize the device. This
> is usually in the form of activation products (inside and outside the
> device), but you can also make fission products if that's your intent.
>
> Ed Stroud, Compliance Lead
> Radioactive Materials Unit
> Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Scott Davidson <bsdnuke at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Group If you do not have the radioactive source, then there is no
> > RAM licensing but there may be registration for particle accelerators in
> > state radiation protection regulations.
> >
> > Also, OSHA applies to all occupational hazards from machine sources of
> > radiation. 29CFR1910.9 Compliance duties owed to each employees would
> > apply for training. 29CFR1910.1096 Ionizing radiation would apply for
> the
> > radiation protection requirement with a caveat that OSHA has not changed
> > since ca. 1970 so be prepared for things like 3 rem per calendar quarter
> > and 5(N-18) and some differences on definitions of radiation areas, etc.
> >
> > Scott
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Rees, Brian G <brees at lanl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > > What are the regulations regarding an electronic neutron generator?
> > > Something like a D-D fusion type. It's possible to make one in a
> > > reasonably well equipped lab, so if someone did, what licensing and use
> > > regulations would apply?
> > > Regulations on an x-ray machine are fairly clear (and they're MUCH
> more
> > > common! - both the machines, and regs!).
> > > I realize that "standard radiation dose limits" would apply, but most
> of
> > > the regulations I see are associated with the Tritium content of a D-T
> > > generator, is there anything special someone would have to do if they
> > made
> > > a D-D neutron generator?
> > >
> > > And yes, I realize that if it was done in a DOE facility their rules
> > would
> > > apply.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance!
> > > Brian Rees
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> > >
> > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> > > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > > http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> > >
> > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:54:02 +0000
> From: Doug Aitken <JAitken at slb.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Neutron Generator regulations
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <
> F7C6AAC66130E64BB89C6220A5AC54B8D98B181B at NL0230MBX07N1.DIR.slb.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Also, there will be RAM in a D-T neutron generator.....
> As a major user of these devices (for downhole petrophysical logging), we
> are required to register them in our NRC and State licenses, with all the
> usual inventory, usage and disposal controls.
> But a more interesting "twist" is that these are considered "dual-use"
> items and subject to extreme export controls (probably not an issue in this
> case.....)
> Regards
> Doug
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> Doug Aitken
> QHSE Advisor, Schlumberger D&M Operations Support
> Cell Phone: 713-562-8585
> (alternate e-mail: doug.aitken at slb.com )
> Mail:
> Schlumberger, Drilling & Measurements HQ,
> 300 Schlumberger Drive, MD15,
> Sugar Land, Texas 77478
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
> radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Stroud - CDPHE, Ed
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:22 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Neutron Generator regulations
>
> Scott,
> As I mentioned in my previous posting, Colorado requires a radioactive
> materials license for use of all neutron generators regardless of type. The
> same rule applies to cyclotrons. The reasoning behind this decision is that
> radioactive materials are produced as soon as you energize the device. This
> is usually in the form of activation products (inside and outside the
> device), but you can also make fission products if that's your intent.
>
> Ed Stroud, Compliance Lead
> Radioactive Materials Unit
> Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Scott Davidson <bsdnuke at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Group If you do not have the radioactive source, then there is no RAM
> > licensing but there may be registration for particle accelerators in
> > state radiation protection regulations.
> >
> > Also, OSHA applies to all occupational hazards from machine sources of
> > radiation. 29CFR1910.9 Compliance duties owed to each employees would
> > apply for training. 29CFR1910.1096 Ionizing radiation would apply for
> > the radiation protection requirement with a caveat that OSHA has not
> > changed since ca. 1970 so be prepared for things like 3 rem per
> > calendar quarter and 5(N-18) and some differences on definitions of
> radiation areas, etc.
> >
> > Scott
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Rees, Brian G <brees at lanl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > > What are the regulations regarding an electronic neutron generator?
> > > Something like a D-D fusion type. It's possible to make one in a
> > > reasonably well equipped lab, so if someone did, what licensing and
> > > use regulations would apply?
> > > Regulations on an x-ray machine are fairly clear (and they're MUCH
> > > more common! - both the machines, and regs!).
> > > I realize that "standard radiation dose limits" would apply, but
> > > most of the regulations I see are associated with the Tritium
> > > content of a D-T generator, is there anything special someone would
> > > have to do if they
> > made
> > > a D-D neutron generator?
> > >
> > > And yes, I realize that if it was done in a DOE facility their rules
> > would
> > > apply.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance!
> > > Brian Rees
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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: 14
> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:23:07 -0700
> From: "Dr. Francis Y. Tsang" <francistsang at cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Neutron Generator regulations
> To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <DA0BDF44-6B55-405C-82AE-F1E2B4194D83 at cox.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Tom,
>
> Thank you for the info.
>
> Are you in town?
>
> We are almost ready for shielding calculations?
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> RadSafe mailing list
> RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
>
>
> End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 1384, Issue 1
> ****************************************
>
--
Rick Maltese
647-379-9655
webcompose.ca webdesign services
leadsheetz.com music services - transposing, composing, teaching etc
rickmaltesemusic.com piano gig page
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list