[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 1624, Issue 1
יוסיאן דוד - YOUSSIAN DAVID
Youssian at hadassah.org.il
Fri Jul 11 05:37:51 CDT 2014
Dear RadSafe Editor
My email address changes to oronltd at gmail.com. Please send the emails to that address.
Best regards,
Dr. David Youssian
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 8:00 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: RadSafe Digest, Vol 1624, 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. Is this the beginning of the end of the debate on low-dose
radiation effects? (Miller, Mark L)
2. Re: Is this the beginning of the end of the debate on
low-dose radiation effects? (Lockhart, Dennis)
3. RMS check source question (JOHN.RICH at sargentlundy.com)
4. Re: Is this the beginning of the end of the debate on
low-dose radiation effects? (Doss, Mohan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 18:59:48 +0000
From: "Miller, Mark L" <mmiller at sandia.gov>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Is this the beginning of the end of the debate on
low-dose radiation effects?
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Cc: "SARI-list \(sari-list at googlegroups.com\)"
<sari-list at googlegroups.com>
Message-ID:
<E549ABD603F24F4182F68C22F381869C5A15E25E at EXMB03.srn.sandia.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Another unintended consequence of the unscientific LNT that our profession has lived with for 60 years. :-( It should never have been this way. A great article, FYI.
http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-014-1306-7
Mark Miller
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Shonka [mailto:jjshonka at shonka.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 11:32 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Is this the beginning of the end of the debate on low-dose radiation effects?
The low dose issue has another dimension in the US. The Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Policy Act (EEOICPA) has awarded approximately 28% of the 40,000 claims that were made and evaluated under the act. (Additional claims were not evaluated and were called Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) cases). The SEC cases occurred when information was insufficient to evaluate the exposure. The existence of (one of 22) cancers was proof that it was caused by the worker's occupational exposure.
By this law, the evaluations of the 40,000 non-SEC cases were made such that there was less than a 1% chance of improperly denying benefits to a worker. Obviously two workers with identical exposure histories might have dosimetry results that were just above and just below the criteria, unfairly denying benefits to the worker with the lower dosimetry result.
This required evaluation at the 99th percentile. Many of the claims were evaluated using the Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP) program. Because of the time dependent nature of cancer induction, IREP does not reduce the uncertainty in the results by utilizing the standard deviation of the mean of multiple measurements, resulting in larger uncertainties than a worker's total lifetime dose than would be estimated using SDOM.
So my question is this. Has this set a legal precedent for US radiation workers who come down with a cancer later in life? Does this precedent make the issue of low dose radiation effects irrelevant for US radiation workers? It seems to me that such a worker could go through a workman's compensation process and assert that this method was developed by the US National Institutes of Health and implemented by NIOSH and applied to more than 40,000 cases. He would ask why the method should not apply to his case.
I would be interested in other opinions.
Joe Shonka
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 19:52:34 +0000
From: "Lockhart, Dennis" <dlockhart at af.umaryland.edu>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Is this the beginning of the end of the
debate on low-dose radiation effects?
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<1C808793E9AB7C4BBBC19C31D91FEC0504461F at CITS-EX1.campus.umaryland.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Otto,
Could you please send me a copy?
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Otto G. Raabe
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 12:59 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Is this the beginning of the end of the debate on low-dose radiation effects?
9 July 2014
The important contrast is between a single instantaneous radiation exposure and protracted exposure over time.
A very small instantaneous exposure will have a meaninglessly small promotion effect on ongoing cancer advancement even if it is not zero.
In sharp contrast, a protracted exposure at low dose rates can interfere with ongoing "natural" cancer processes,
See my Figure 16 in Health Phys. 98:515-536; 2010 where I show a statistically significant reduction (zero cases) in bone sarcoma from Sr+Y-90 protracted radiation exposures for cumulative doses smaller than 10 Sv. This I call a life-span virtual threshold for radiation induced cancer.
If you do not have this paper I will send it to you
Otto
**********************************************
Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
Center for Health & the Environment
University of California
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu
Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140
***********************************************
_______________________________________________
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: 3
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 15:38:38 -0500
From: JOHN.RICH at sargentlundy.com
Subject: [ RadSafe ] RMS check source question
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Message-ID:
<OF0E30630E.5BCF51A3-ON86257D10.006FD3FD-86257D10.007166C0 at sargentlundy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi all,
ANSI N323D-2002 provides a "permissive" for using the background count
rate in lieu of a check source as follows.
"An instrument's response to ambient background radiation may be used in
lieu of a check source provided
a) The instrument's application primarily involves a point of interest
that is near the level of ambient background radiation;
b) The instrument's response to ambient background radiation is
characterized and documented;
c) The instrument's response to ambient background radiation is routinely
monitored; and
d) Provisions are made for removing the instrument from service if the
instrument's response to ambient background radiation changes by an amount
that cannot be attributed to expected changes in the background level."
Has anybody used this, or any other approach, to eliminate active check
sources?
We're looking at replacing some radiation monitors for a client, and there
are a couple of monitors where maintaining a check source would be
difficult due to the location. It would be great if the background, or a
non-moving keep-alive source, could be used instead. I'm not sure how the
NRC would react. However, it seems like the new detectors and electronics
are so much more reliable than the equipment of the 60's that detector
failures, electronic failures, and drift, would be in the same range as
other instrument loops, and RMS channels could be run 18 months between
calibration and maintenance. Thus it shouldn't be necessary to trigger a
check source once a month to confirm OPERABILITY.
thx in advance - -jmr
John Rich
312-269-3768
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 01:37:15 +0000
From: "Doss, Mohan" <Mohan.Doss at fccc.edu>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Is this the beginning of the end of the
debate on low-dose radiation effects?
To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List'" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<AC6C50929935A441A1B6459EADCCB51D06B92DAF at EXMBSRVR02.medadmin.fccc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Otto,
There are examples of clinical trials where acute radiation dose of 10 cGy to the whole body given 15 times during 5 weeks resulted in systemic reduction of cancers, as seen in this publication http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/823140 , with the outcomes being as good as chemotherapy. Higher doses, if given instead of 10 cGy per fraction, would undoubtedly raise the cancer risk. Similarly, second cancers (per kg of tissue) were lower for the regions of body having 20-50 cGy radiation dose in radiation therapy patients, whereas much higher doses resulted in increased second cancers as seen in Tubiana's paper http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21595074 . The different parts of the body had radiation exposures with the same time characteristics, with low-dose resulting in cancer reduction (compared to zero dose) whereas high doses resulted in increased cancers. Your model, since it does not have the opposite effects at low doses and high doses, would have a difficult tim
e explaining these data.
With best regards,
Mohan
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Otto G. Raabe
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 12:59 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Is this the beginning of the end of the debate on low-dose radiation effects?
9 July 2014
The important contrast is between a single instantaneous radiation exposure and protracted exposure over time.
A very small instantaneous exposure will have a meaninglessly small promotion effect on ongoing cancer advancement even if it is not zero.
In sharp contrast, a protracted exposure at low dose rates can interfere with ongoing "natural" cancer processes,
See my Figure 16 in Health Phys. 98:515-536; 2010 where I show a statistically significant reduction (zero cases) in bone sarcoma from Sr+Y-90 protracted radiation exposures for cumulative doses smaller than 10 Sv. This I call a life-span virtual threshold for radiation induced cancer.
If you do not have this paper I will send it to you
Otto
**********************************************
Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
Center for Health & the Environment
University of California
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu
Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140
***********************************************
_______________________________________________
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
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.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
RadSafe mailing list
RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 1624, Issue 1
****************************************
This Message confirms that this email message has been scanned by
Hadassah for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list