[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 1238, Issue 1
John Ahlquist
john.ahlquist at sbcglobal.net
Sat Mar 16 16:22:59 CDT 2013
________________________________
From: "radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu"
<radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu>
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Sat, March 16, 2013 10:01:17 AM
Subject: RadSafe Digest, Vol 1238, 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: 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