[ RadSafe ] Need advise moving large lead shield
Chris Vanderpool
cdvanderpool at windstream.net
Sun Mar 17 09:50:52 CDT 2013
Rob, in regards to moving the Canberra 747 I would recommend using an adjustable aluminum a frame ( made by Grainger or equivalent). I believe the model I have used was rated for 4000 lbs. This was used in conjunction with an equally rated chain hoist and lifting straps.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 16, 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. Re: Need advice Moving large Pb shield (Amoling, Ronald)
> 2. Improper Application of ALARA following stabilization of
> Fukushima Nuclear Reactors (Mohan Doss)
> 3. Re: Improper Application of ALARA following stabilization of
> Fukushima Nuclear Reactors (Victor Anderson)
> 4. Re: Improper Application of ALARA following stabilization of
> Fukushima Nuclear Reactors (Victor Anderson)
> 5. Cancers in Port Hope uranium workers no higher than average
> (Dan McCarn)
> 6. Re: Improper Application of ALARA following stabilization of
> Fukushima Nuclear Reactors (Dan McCarn)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:02:52 -0400
> From: "Amoling, Ronald" <RAmoling at as-e.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Need advice Moving large Pb shield
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <4539FA523525E94C81E7CBF3A6BEE8D2483CE41D1D at mahqexc04>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
>
> My advice would be to contract with a local rigging company. They handle these kinds of heavy loads all the time and have the appropriate equipment and manpower to do it efficiently and safely.
>
>
> Ron Amoling, RSO / EHS Manager
> American Science and Engineering, Inc. | www.as-e.com ?
> 829 Middlesex Turnpike | Billerica, MA 01821 USA
> Office +1-978-495-9012 | Cell +1-508-728-1348 | RAmoling at as-e.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of S L Gawarecki
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:36 AM
> To: RadSafe
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Need advice Moving large Pb shield
>
> You might be able to use two engine lifts--these are large hydraulic overhead lifts that roll on a V-shaped base. I would look for something sized for truck engines.
>
> Regards,*
> **Susan Gawarecki*
>
> ph: 865-494-0102
> cell: 865-604-3724
> SLGawarecki at gmail.com
>
> Rob wrote:
> "We are trying to move a Canberra Model 747 Pb shield into a room and onto its stand and need some advice. We can get it into the room with a forklift and even set it onto the stand, but must then move it about 8 feet. We are concerned with moving it while loaded on the stand as it will be top heavy.
> We cannot get the forklift into the room. The unit weighs 3000 lbs and has lifting eyes.
>
>
> I am sure someone out there has done this and can give some advice. I would much prefer to lift the device onto the stand once in the room, but am not familiar with small enough portable equipment capable getting into the room through a 36" door and lifting this 3000 lb device. Another way we could do this is to load it onto the stand with a forklift from outside the room and then "slide" it over about 10 feet. This does not seem like a very safe way to do this since it is so top heavy.
>
>
>
> Perhaps there are lifting devices that can be rented?
>
> Any advice would be appreciated."
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> This message is intended only for the addressee and may contain information
> that is confidential, privileged or contain data within the definition of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and/or Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and are subject to the export control laws of the US Government. Unauthorized use or transfer of this data by any means to a foreign person, whether in the US or abroad without an export license or other approval from the US Department of State or Commerce is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you should not read, copy, disclose or otherwise use this message, except for the purposes of delivery to the addressee. If you have received this e-mail in error please delete it and advise AS&E immediately.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:32:58 -0400
> From: Mohan Doss <mohan.doss at fccc.edu>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Improper Application of ALARA following
> stabilization of Fukushima Nuclear Reactors
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <5143938A.7010200 at fccc.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Dear All,
> A few days ago I attended a meeting dedicated to the Japanese
> people affected by the nuclear reactor accidents at Fukushima two years
> ago. Because of the steps taken immediately following the accidents
> including evacuation, there were no acute effects from the radiation,
> and little long-term ill effects are expected from the low dose
> exposures the public received. However, the prolonged evacuation based
> on radiation safety regulations, which is still continuing for about
> 200,000, has resulted in severe emotional stress, and there is increased
> incidence of depression, PTSD, etc. I have also read published articles
> and newspaper reports describing the evacuation stress-related deaths to
> be several hundred and may be even a thousand. It does not seem right
> that following the radiation safety regulations should be resulting in
> thousands of people being sick with these mental illnesses and hundreds
> of deaths. I think the reason for the radiation safety
> regulation-related casualties are because of an improper application of
> the ALARA principle that is part of the regulations.
> Of course we all know NRC website defines ALARA as "an acronym for
> 'as low as (is) reasonably achievable,' which means making every
> reasonable effort to maintain exposures to ionizing radiation as far
> below the dose limits as practical, consistent with the purpose for
> which the licensed activity is undertaken, taking into account the state
> of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to state of
> technology, the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the
> public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic
> considerations, and in relation to utilization of nuclear energy and
> licensed materials in the public interest. "
> In my interpretation, the key point in this long definition is
> benefit to public health, i.e. the steps for dose reduction should be
> taken so long as the efforts involved and costs incurred are
> commensurate with improvement to public health, and that implies, of
> course, that the steps taken should not be harming public health. Since
> the emotional toll the long-term evacuation took in Chernobyl was
> already known, the emotional effects should have been factored into the
> ALARA considerations and calculations, balanced by the expected
> reduction in cancers from the long-term evacuation based on the LNT
> model. Though it is assumed that low dose radiation increases the
> cancer risk using the LNT model, the public's cancer risk could be
> reduced by engaging a larger fraction of the public in regular physical
> exercise through more education, facilities, incentives etc., since
> exercise is known to reduce the risk of cancer by 20% or even higher.
> In view of this, it appears as if we have accepted immediate definitive
> depressions and related deaths in order to achieve a slightly reduced
> risk of cancer (LNT model-based) far into the future. Does not appear
> to me to be a wise trade, considering the risk of cancer can be reduced
> by encouragement of exercise among the public, and making other
> lifestyle adjustments. It is hard for me to imagine being in this
> situation, of being evacuated and living in temporary shelters for 2+
> years. If my family were evacuated in this manner, some members of my
> friends or family went through depression or died from depression, and
> the radiation safety officers or other officials there told me "I am
> sorry about the depressions and deaths in your family and friends, but
> look how I have saved all of you from having increased cancer risk 10
> years from now", I would have fired them all right there (if I had the
> power).
> I would like to know if you all agree with this assessment regarding
> the misapplication of ALARA. If this assessment is correct, we should
> be ending the evacuation soon, even if it involves somewhat higher
> radiation doses to some of the public, in view of the likely improvement
> to their emotional health. If there is sufficient agreement among the
> radiation safety professionals here that we should end the evacuation
> soon based on such considerations, we can present the arguments to the
> Japanese government as our collective opinion, and encourage a return to
> normalcy soon in Fukushima. If it is a collective opinion with a large
> number of professionals supporting it, they might listen. Of course it
> will be difficult to end the evacuation now, since we have been telling
> the public the low dose radiation is dangerous, the public has believed
> us, and will undergo emotional stress in returning to their homes from
> the cancer concerns. But we can discuss how to reduce those concerns if
> there is general agreement about ending the evacuation.
> Please answer the short anonymous survey at the following link soon,
> as I want to get a quick pulse on the community's thoughts. Therefore,
> the survey will close on Monday, Mar 18, 2013, at 5:00 pm EDT:
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/7F2K3HR . I will post the results here
> shortly thereafter. You can of course discuss the ideas here, but the
> survey enables getting the pulse quickly, so we can decide whether to
> proceed further along the suggested lines, or accept the status quo.
> Thanks in advance for answering the survey.
> With best regards,
> Mohan
>
>
> Mohan Doss, Ph.D., MCCPM
> Medical Physicist,
> Associate Professor, Diagnostic Imaging,
> Fox Chase Cancer Center, R427
> 333 Cottman Avenue,
> Philadelphia, PA 19111-2497.
> Phone: 215 214-1707
> Fax: 215 728-4755
> E-mail:Mohan.Doss at fccc.edu
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication may contain private, confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated and/or duly authorized recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and permanently delete all copies of this email including all attachments without reading them. If you are the intended recipient, secure the contents in a manner that conforms to all applicable state and/or federal requirements related to privacy and confidentiality of such information.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:17:40 -0700
> From: "Victor Anderson" <victor.anderson at frontier.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Improper Application of ALARA following
> stabilization of Fukushima Nuclear Reactors
> To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
> MailingList'" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>, "'The International
> Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing List'"
> <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <27F379DA5A4A4AC39F43B84C36D3B3BF at VictorPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Good Afternoon,
>
> Interesting ideas presented below. While I agree with the spirit of the
> opinions, I must differ with the arguments being made. First off, ALARA
> only applies to doses within the appropriate regulatory envelope. If the
> applied dose limits are too strict or too loose, one cannot argue that the
> doses are or are not ALARA on the basis of the limits and requirements to
> comply with them. The next step in determination of ALARA is to determine
> if there is a net benefit to all. The argument below does make the case for
> a lack of net benefit. Finally, one must show that the dose has been
> optimized: that the most benefit has been achieved for the minimum dose.
> The real problem lies in determining what the appropriate regulatory limit
> is for both Japan and the USA. In the United States, there is only guidance
> as listed in EPA 400. As far as I know there are no regulations that
> require evacuation at an immediate dose of between 1 and 5 rem. Licensee's
> (NPP) and the jurisdictions they are in are only required by regulation to
> adopt emergency plans. The limits for evacuating, shelter-in-place, and so
> forth are just guidelines. The problem I have with the US radiological
> emergency response community is that they are overly focused on avoiding
> radiation dose. There is an appearance of doing "flips and twists" to avoid
> even fractions of a millirem of dose with little or no consideration to the
> consequences. In this Mohan is absolutely correct. Our nuclear emergency
> planning needs to look at the whole picture. For example, the EPZ area is
> going to be subjected a blizzard with low temperatures. Homes within the
> EPZ are built to withstand these kinds of weather conditions. The
> evacuation shelters are not adequate to withstand the blizzard conditions.
> Evacuation because of a 2 rem projected dose would be most unwise. We need
> to change our thinking to reflect a philosophy of considering the entire
> situation in taking protective actions.
>
> Victor
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Mohan Doss
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 2:33 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Improper Application of ALARA following stabilization
> of Fukushima Nuclear Reactors
>
> Dear All,
> A few days ago I attended a meeting dedicated to the Japanese
> people affected by the nuclear reactor accidents at Fukushima two years
> ago. Because of the steps taken immediately following the accidents
> including evacuation, there were no acute effects from the radiation,
> and little long-term ill effects are expected from the low dose
> exposures the public received. However, the prolonged evacuation based
> on radiation safety regulations, which is still continuing for about
> 200,000, has resulted in severe emotional stress, and there is increased
> incidence of depression, PTSD, etc. I have also read published articles
> and newspaper reports describing the evacuation stress-related deaths to
> be several hundred and may be even a thousand. It does not seem right
> that following the radiation safety regulations should be resulting in
> thousands of people being sick with these mental illnesses and hundreds
> of deaths. I think the reason for the radiation safety
> regulation-related casualties are because of an improper application of
> the ALARA principle that is part of the regulations.
> Of course we all know NRC website defines ALARA as "an acronym for
> 'as low as (is) reasonably achievable,' which means making every
> reasonable effort to maintain exposures to ionizing radiation as far
> below the dose limits as practical, consistent with the purpose for
> which the licensed activity is undertaken, taking into account the state
> of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to state of
> technology, the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the
> public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic
> considerations, and in relation to utilization of nuclear energy and
> licensed materials in the public interest. "
> In my interpretation, the key point in this long definition is
> benefit to public health, i.e. the steps for dose reduction should be
> taken so long as the efforts involved and costs incurred are
> commensurate with improvement to public health, and that implies, of
> course, that the steps taken should not be harming public health. Since
> the emotional toll the long-term evacuation took in Chernobyl was
> already known, the emotional effects should have been factored into the
> ALARA considerations and calculations, balanced by the expected
> reduction in cancers from the long-term evacuation based on the LNT
> model. Though it is assumed that low dose radiation increases the
> cancer risk using the LNT model, the public's cancer risk could be
> reduced by engaging a larger fraction of the public in regular physical
> exercise through more education, facilities, incentives etc., since
> exercise is known to reduce the risk of cancer by 20% or even higher.
> In view of this, it appears as if we have accepted immediate definitive
> depressions and related deaths in order to achieve a slightly reduced
> risk of cancer (LNT model-based) far into the future. Does not appear
> to me to be a wise trade, considering the risk of cancer can be reduced
> by encouragement of exercise among the public, and making other
> lifestyle adjustments. It is hard for me to imagine being in this
> situation, of being evacuated and living in temporary shelters for 2+
> years. If my family were evacuated in this manner, some members of my
> friends or family went through depression or died from depression, and
> the radiation safety officers or other officials there told me "I am
> sorry about the depressions and deaths in your family and friends, but
> look how I have saved all of you from having increased cancer risk 10
> years from now", I would have fired them all right there (if I had the
> power).
> I would like to know if you all agree with this assessment regarding
> the misapplication of ALARA. If this assessment is correct, we should
> be ending the evacuation soon, even if it involves somewhat higher
> radiation doses to some of the public, in view of the likely improvement
> to their emotional health. If there is sufficient agreement among the
> radiation safety professionals here that we should end the evacuation
> soon based on such considerations, we can present the arguments to the
> Japanese government as our collective opinion, and encourage a return to
> normalcy soon in Fukushima. If it is a collective opinion with a large
> number of professionals supporting it, they might listen. Of course it
> will be difficult to end the evacuation now, since we have been telling
> the public the low dose radiation is dangerous, the public has believed
> us, and will undergo emotional stress in returning to their homes from
> the cancer concerns. But we can discuss how to reduce those concerns if
> there is general agreement about ending the evacuation.
> Please answer the short anonymous survey at the following link soon,
> as I want to get a quick pulse on the community's thoughts. Therefore,
> the survey will close on Monday, Mar 18, 2013, at 5:00 pm EDT:
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/7F2K3HR . I will post the results here
> shortly thereafter. You can of course discuss the ideas here, but the
> survey enables getting the pulse quickly, so we can decide whether to
> proceed further along the suggested lines, or accept the status quo.
> Thanks in advance for answering the survey.
> With best regards,
> Mohan
>
>
> Mohan Doss, Ph.D., MCCPM
> Medical Physicist,
> Associate Professor, Diagnostic Imaging,
> Fox Chase Cancer Center, R427
> 333 Cottman Avenue,
> Philadelphia, PA 19111-2497.
> Phone: 215 214-1707
> Fax: 215 728-4755
> E-mail:Mohan.Doss at fccc.edu
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication may contain private,
> confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of
> the designated and/or duly authorized recipient(s). If you are not the
> intended recipient or have received this email in error, please notify the
> sender immediately by email and permanently delete all copies of this email
> including all attachments without reading them. If you are the intended
> recipient, secure the contents in a manner that conforms to all applicable
> state and/or federal requirements related to privacy and confidentiality of
> such information.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:17:40 -0700
> From: "Victor Anderson" <victor.anderson at frontier.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Improper Application of ALARA following
> stabilization of Fukushima Nuclear Reactors
> To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
> MailingList'" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>, "'The International
> Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing List'"
> <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <27F379DA5A4A4AC39F43B84C36D3B3BF at VictorPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Good Afternoon,
>
> Interesting ideas presented below. While I agree with the spirit of the
> opinions, I must differ with the arguments being made. First off, ALARA
> only applies to doses within the appropriate regulatory envelope. If the
> applied dose limits are too strict or too loose, one cannot argue that the
> doses are or are not ALARA on the basis of the limits and requirements to
> comply with them. The next step in determination of ALARA is to determine
> if there is a net benefit to all. The argument below does make the case for
> a lack of net benefit. Finally, one must show that the dose has been
> optimized: that the most benefit has been achieved for the minimum dose.
> The real problem lies in determining what the appropriate regulatory limit
> is for both Japan and the USA. In the United States, there is only guidance
> as listed in EPA 400. As far as I know there are no regulations that
> require evacuation at an immediate dose of between 1 and 5 rem. Licensee's
> (NPP) and the jurisdictions they are in are only required by regulation to
> adopt emergency plans. The limits for evacuating, shelter-in-place, and so
> forth are just guidelines. The problem I have with the US radiological
> emergency response community is that they are overly focused on avoiding
> radiation dose. There is an appearance of doing "flips and twists" to avoid
> even fractions of a millirem of dose with little or no consideration to the
> consequences. In this Mohan is absolutely correct. Our nuclear emergency
> planning needs to look at the whole picture. For example, the EPZ area is
> going to be subjected a blizzard with low temperatures. Homes within the
> EPZ are built to withstand these kinds of weather conditions. The
> evacuation shelters are not adequate to withstand the blizzard conditions.
> Evacuation because of a 2 rem projected dose would be most unwise. We need
> to change our thinking to reflect a philosophy of considering the entire
> situation in taking protective actions.
>
> Victor
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Mohan Doss
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 2:33 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Improper Application of ALARA following stabilization
> of Fukushima Nuclear Reactors
>
> Dear All,
> A few days ago I attended a meeting dedicated to the Japanese
> people affected by the nuclear reactor accidents at Fukushima two years
> ago. Because of the steps taken immediately following the accidents
> including evacuation, there were no acute effects from the radiation,
> and little long-term ill effects are expected from the low dose
> exposures the public received. However, the prolonged evacuation based
> on radiation safety regulations, which is still continuing for about
> 200,000, has resulted in severe emotional stress, and there is increased
> incidence of depression, PTSD, etc. I have also read published articles
> and newspaper reports describing the evacuation stress-related deaths to
> be several hundred and may be even a thousand. It does not seem right
> that following the radiation safety regulations should be resulting in
> thousands of people being sick with these mental illnesses and hundreds
> of deaths. I think the reason for the radiation safety
> regulation-related casualties are because of an improper application of
> the ALARA principle that is part of the regulations.
> Of course we all know NRC website defines ALARA as "an acronym for
> 'as low as (is) reasonably achievable,' which means making every
> reasonable effort to maintain exposures to ionizing radiation as far
> below the dose limits as practical, consistent with the purpose for
> which the licensed activity is undertaken, taking into account the state
> of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to state of
> technology, the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the
> public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic
> considerations, and in relation to utilization of nuclear energy and
> licensed materials in the public interest. "
> In my interpretation, the key point in this long definition is
> benefit to public health, i.e. the steps for dose reduction should be
> taken so long as the efforts involved and costs incurred are
> commensurate with improvement to public health, and that implies, of
> course, that the steps taken should not be harming public health. Since
> the emotional toll the long-term evacuation took in Chernobyl was
> already known, the emotional effects should have been factored into the
> ALARA considerations and calculations, balanced by the expected
> reduction in cancers from the long-term evacuation based on the LNT
> model. Though it is assumed that low dose radiation increases the
> cancer risk using the LNT model, the public's cancer risk could be
> reduced by engaging a larger fraction of the public in regular physical
> exercise through more education, facilities, incentives etc., since
> exercise is known to reduce the risk of cancer by 20% or even higher.
> In view of this, it appears as if we have accepted immediate definitive
> depressions and related deaths in order to achieve a slightly reduced
> risk of cancer (LNT model-based) far into the future. Does not appear
> to me to be a wise trade, considering the risk of cancer can be reduced
> by encouragement of exercise among the public, and making other
> lifestyle adjustments. It is hard for me to imagine being in this
> situation, of being evacuated and living in temporary shelters for 2+
> years. If my family were evacuated in this manner, some members of my
> friends or family went through depression or died from depression, and
> the radiation safety officers or other officials there told me "I am
> sorry about the depressions and deaths in your family and friends, but
> look how I have saved all of you from having increased cancer risk 10
> years from now", I would have fired them all right there (if I had the
> power).
> I would like to know if you all agree with this assessment regarding
> the misapplication of ALARA. If this assessment is correct, we should
> be ending the evacuation soon, even if it involves somewhat higher
> radiation doses to some of the public, in view of the likely improvement
> to their emotional health. If there is sufficient agreement among the
> radiation safety professionals here that we should end the evacuation
> soon based on such considerations, we can present the arguments to the
> Japanese government as our collective opinion, and encourage a return to
> normalcy soon in Fukushima. If it is a collective opinion with a large
> number of professionals supporting it, they might listen. Of course it
> will be difficult to end the evacuation now, since we have been telling
> the public the low dose radiation is dangerous, the public has believed
> us, and will undergo emotional stress in returning to their homes from
> the cancer concerns. But we can discuss how to reduce those concerns if
> there is general agreement about ending the evacuation.
> Please answer the short anonymous survey at the following link soon,
> as I want to get a quick pulse on the community's thoughts. Therefore,
> the survey will close on Monday, Mar 18, 2013, at 5:00 pm EDT:
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/7F2K3HR . I will post the results here
> shortly thereafter. You can of course discuss the ideas here, but the
> survey enables getting the pulse quickly, so we can decide whether to
> proceed further along the suggested lines, or accept the status quo.
> Thanks in advance for answering the survey.
> With best regards,
> Mohan
>
>
> Mohan Doss, Ph.D., MCCPM
> Medical Physicist,
> Associate Professor, Diagnostic Imaging,
> Fox Chase Cancer Center, R427
> 333 Cottman Avenue,
> Philadelphia, PA 19111-2497.
> Phone: 215 214-1707
> Fax: 215 728-4755
> E-mail:Mohan.Doss at fccc.edu
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication may contain private,
> confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of
> the designated and/or duly authorized recipient(s). If you are not the
> intended recipient or have received this email in error, please notify the
> sender immediately by email and permanently delete all copies of this email
> including all attachments without reading them. If you are the intended
> recipient, secure the contents in a manner that conforms to all applicable
> state and/or federal requirements related to privacy and confidentiality of
> such information.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 5
> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 00:41:58 -0600
> From: Dan McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cancers in Port Hope uranium workers no higher
> than average
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <CAD=JBazk5=5TvEyJacvphs0w3zxC-emGFhD9YL68z1Tn+3BRKQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Cancers in Port Hope *uranium* workers no higher than
> average<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2013/03/14/cancer-radiation-port-hope.html&ct=ga&cad=CAEQAhgBIAAoATAAOABA1bSMigVIAVAAWABiBWVuLVVT&cd=9Srb2m3SXpI&usg=AFQjCNFYRS0PdWRGh8QrdNevkBOxs2OWjA>
> CBC.ca
> Cancer incidences among *uranium* processing workers in an Ontario
> community were no different than general population, a federal study
> suggests. The town of Port Hope, about 100 kilometres east of Toronto, has
> had a radium and *uranium* refinery and *...*
> See all stories on this topic
> ?<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://news.google.com/news/story%3Fncl%3Dhttp://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2013/03/14/cancer-radiation-port-hope.html%26hl%3Den%26geo%3Dus&ct=ga&cad=CAEQAhgBIAAoBjAAOABA1bSMigVIAVAAWABiBWVuLVVT&cd=9Srb2m3SXpI&usg=AFQjCNHj5NNJThdDfv3OKGYgFF40xNhAGw>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2013/03/14/cancer-radiation-port-hope.html
>
>
> Dan ii
>
> Dan W McCarn, Geologist
> 108 Sherwood Blvd
> Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
> +1-505-672-2014 (Home ? New Mexico)
> +1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
> HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:53:54 -0600
> From: Dan McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Improper Application of ALARA following
> stabilization of Fukushima Nuclear Reactors
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <CAD=JBawK3DvM7jPMka-uh4m6kvwpUAtW+qoQwdtZQtD_O+qkRA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Dear Mohan:
>
> There was a Russian study from St. Petersburg following Chernobyl that
> arrived at similar conclusions (10th anniversary meetings in 1996). It was
> effectively squashed.
>
> The mortality rate of survivors that were relocated was strongly effected
> by stress-related diseases. My "old Russian boss", A. Nechaev, from the
> IAEA is looking for that paper for me now. He reported that there were 5
> increased-risk, stress-related diseases present: 1) Suicide; 2) Drug
> & alcohol abuse; 3) Diabetes; 4-Heart disease; and 5) Stroke (listed in the
> order of significance). These were increased risks compared to a control
> population that remained just outside of the 30-km exclusion zone who
> received a larger radiation dose.
>
> A large part of the stress was related to media pressure, separation from
> extended family, loss of meaningful work, living in sub-standard housing,
> poor diet & very-low income.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Dan ii
>
> Dan W McCarn, Geologist
> 108 Sherwood Blvd
> Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
> +1-505-672-2014 (Home ? New Mexico)
> +1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
> HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Mohan Doss <mohan.doss at fccc.edu> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> A few days ago I attended a meeting dedicated to the Japanese people
>> affected by the nuclear reactor accidents at Fukushima two years ago.
>> Because of the steps taken immediately following the accidents including
>> evacuation, there were no acute effects from the radiation, and little
>> long-term ill effects are expected from the low dose exposures the public
>> received. However, the prolonged evacuation based on radiation safety
>> regulations, which is still continuing for about 200,000, has resulted in
>> severe emotional stress, and there is increased incidence of depression,
>> PTSD, etc. I have also read published articles and newspaper reports
>> describing the evacuation stress-related deaths to be several hundred and
>> may be even a thousand. It does not seem right that following the
>> radiation safety regulations should be resulting in thousands of people
>> being sick with these mental illnesses and hundreds of deaths. I think the
>> reason for the radiation safety regulation-related casualties are because
>> of an improper application of the ALARA principle that is part of the
>> regulations.
>> Of course we all know NRC website defines ALARA as "an acronym for 'as
>> low as (is) reasonably achievable,' which means making every reasonable
>> effort to maintain exposures to ionizing radiation as far below the dose
>> limits as practical, consistent with the purpose for which the licensed
>> activity is undertaken, taking into account the state of technology, the
>> economics of improvements in relation to state of technology, the economics
>> of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety,
>> and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to
>> utilization of nuclear energy and licensed materials in the public
>> interest. "
>> In my interpretation, the key point in this long definition is benefit
>> to public health, i.e. the steps for dose reduction should be taken so long
>> as the efforts involved and costs incurred are commensurate with
>> improvement to public health, and that implies, of course, that the steps
>> taken should not be harming public health. Since the emotional toll the
>> long-term evacuation took in Chernobyl was already known, the emotional
>> effects should have been factored into the ALARA considerations and
>> calculations, balanced by the expected reduction in cancers from the
>> long-term evacuation based on the LNT model. Though it is assumed that low
>> dose radiation increases the cancer risk using the LNT model, the public's
>> cancer risk could be reduced by engaging a larger fraction of the public in
>> regular physical exercise through more education, facilities, incentives
>> etc., since exercise is known to reduce the risk of cancer by 20% or even
>> higher. In view of this, it appears as if we have accepted immediate
>> definitive depressions and related deaths in order to achieve a slightly
>> reduced risk of cancer (LNT model-based) far into the future. Does not
>> appear to me to be a wise trade, considering the risk of cancer can be
>> reduced by encouragement of exercise among the public, and making other
>> lifestyle adjustments. It is hard for me to imagine being in this
>> situation, of being evacuated and living in temporary shelters for 2+
>> years. If my family were evacuated in this manner, some members of my
>> friends or family went through depression or died from depression, and the
>> radiation safety officers or other officials there told me "I am sorry
>> about the depressions and deaths in your family and friends, but look how
>> I have saved all of you from having increased cancer risk 10 years from
>> now", I would have fired them all right there (if I had the power).
>> I would like to know if you all agree with this assessment regarding
>> the misapplication of ALARA. If this assessment is correct, we should be
>> ending the evacuation soon, even if it involves somewhat higher radiation
>> doses to some of the public, in view of the likely improvement to their
>> emotional health. If there is sufficient agreement among the radiation
>> safety professionals here that we should end the evacuation soon based on
>> such considerations, we can present the arguments to the Japanese
>> government as our collective opinion, and encourage a return to normalcy
>> soon in Fukushima. If it is a collective opinion with a large number of
>> professionals supporting it, they might listen. Of course it will be
>> difficult to end the evacuation now, since we have been telling the public
>> the low dose radiation is dangerous, the public has believed us, and will
>> undergo emotional stress in returning to their homes from the cancer
>> concerns. But we can discuss how to reduce those concerns if there is
>> general agreement about ending the evacuation.
>> Please answer the short anonymous survey at the following link soon, as
>> I want to get a quick pulse on the community's thoughts. Therefore, the
>> survey will close on Monday, Mar 18, 2013, at 5:00 pm EDT:
>> https://www.surveymonkey.com/**s/7F2K3HR<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/7F2K3HR>. I will post the results here shortly thereafter. You can of course
>> discuss the ideas here, but the survey enables getting the pulse quickly,
>> so we can decide whether to proceed further along the suggested lines, or
>> accept the status quo. Thanks in advance for answering the survey.
>> With best regards,
>> Mohan
>>
>>
>> Mohan Doss, Ph.D., MCCPM
>> Medical Physicist,
>> Associate Professor, Diagnostic Imaging,
>> Fox Chase Cancer Center, R427
>> 333 Cottman Avenue,
>> Philadelphia, PA 19111-2497.
>> Phone: 215 214-1707
>> Fax: 215 728-4755
>> E-mail:Mohan.Doss at fccc.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication may contain private,
>> confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use
>> of the designated and/or duly authorized recipient(s). If you are not the
>> intended recipient or have received this email in error, please notify the
>> sender immediately by email and permanently delete all copies of this email
>> including all attachments without reading them. If you are the intended
>> recipient, secure the contents in a manner that conforms to all applicable
>> state and/or federal requirements related to privacy and confidentiality of
>> such information.
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
>> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/**
>> radsaferules.html <http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html>
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> RadSafe mailing list
> RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
>
>
> End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 1238, Issue 1
> ****************************************
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list