[ RadSafe ] Ru-106 in Europe
Johansen, Kjell
Kjell.Johansen at nexteraenergy.com
Mon Nov 13 12:43:13 CST 2017
Interesting to read that Christina MacPherson describes Ru-106 as "a transuranic isotope" created in nuclear reactors. A bit of light-weight nuclear physics?
Kjell Johansen
Senior Nuclear Chemistry Analyst
Two Rivers, WI 54241
-----Original Message-----
From: RadSafe [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 12:00 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: RadSafe Digest, Vol 2338, Issue 1
CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL
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. Some Chinese coal ash too radioactive for reuse (ROY HERREN)
2. Europe?s radiation cloud is not harmless, if you happen to be
near the source (Roger Helbig)
3. Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Meaning of Rem? (UNCLASSIFIED)
(Falo, Gerald A CIV USARMY MEDCOM APHC (US))
4. Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Meaning of Rem? (UNCLASSIFIED)
(John R Johnson)
5. Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Meaning of Rem? (UNCLASSIFIED)
(Strickert, Rick (Consultant))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:15:31 +0000 (UTC)
From: ROY HERREN <royherren2005 at yahoo.com>
To: <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Some Chinese coal ash too radioactive for reuse
Message-ID: <1754982752.947953.1510568131013 at mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b03473
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials in Uranium-Rich Coals and Associated Coal Combustion Residues from China
If the coal ash is so highly contaminated with uranium then what about the radon daughter products that are continuously going up and out of the power plants smoke stacks?
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 04:33:26 -0800
From: Roger Helbig <rwhelbig at gmail.com>
To: RADSAFE <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Europe?s radiation cloud is not harmless, if you
happen to be near the source
Message-ID:
<CALZ0NqW0HC_MTOJwsD6OqNxd93dVWJiMRH=UL9k7N7Qx=X8Fpw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Arnie Gundersen is now masquerading as a "nuclear expert" opining on Ruthenium release in Europe.
Roger Helbig
Europe?s radiation cloud is not harmless, if you happen to be near the source
by Christina MacPherson
Radiation Cloud Over Europe, Not ?Harmless? to Those near Unknown Source, Nuclear Expert Says https://www.environews.tv/world-news/radiation-cloud-europe-not-harmless-near-unknown-source-nuclear-expert-says/,
bureau EnviroNews World News ,by Emerson Urry , November 11, 2017 ?An airborne plume of radioactive ruthenium 106 from a nuclear accident was detected ?in the atmosphere of the majority of European countries,? from late September through mid-October, according to France?s Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety Institute (IRSN) ? but the source is still unknown. As of November 10, 2017, the manmade element has been identified in at least 28 countries.
While many news agencies are calling the cloud ?harmless? and reporting the good news ? that radiation levels are low and that no health consequences have been observed ? radiation experts tell EnviroNews the scene may not be so peachy at ground zero where the release occurred. The question is: where exactly is ground zero?In a report, the IRSN used wind and weather patterns, coupled with readouts from radiation monitoring stations throughout Europe, to deduce the ?most plausible zone of release lies between the [Volga River] and the [Ural Mountains].? According to NPR, Jean-Christophe Gariel, Director for Health at the IRSN, said, the plume ?has been traced to somewhere along the Russia-Kazakhstan border.?
?Russian authorities have said they are not aware of an accident on their territory,? Jean-Marc Peres, Director at the IRSN, told Reuters, adding that he had not yet been in contact with Kazakh officials.
?Whoever released it ain?t talking,? said nuclear expert and whistleblower Arnie Gundersen to EnviroNews, in an email interview.
?It?s kind of like passing gas in church. Everybody knows it happened but no one is admitting to be the source!? Gundersen, of Fairewinds Associates, is a nuclear engineer and former nuclear power plant operator, who was also CNN?s on-air expert during the three-reactor meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi.
What is known is that the release did not emanate from a nuclear power reactor meltdown. If that were the case, the cloud would have been loaded with many other radionuclides generated during meltdowns. The IRSN said the release likely came from a ?nuclear fuel treatment site or centre for radioactive medicine,? according to Reuters.
The IRSN also wrote in its report, ?there has been no impact on human health or the environment,? and many news agencies have since regurgitated this assertion in their reporting. But this is a difficult statement. The gestation period for the carcinogenic and mutagenic health consequences from even low-level radiation exposure is very long, and medical maladies may take decades to unfurl. The effects of exposure to ionizing radiation can also be multigenerational, deforming the genes of unborn children and grandchildren, predisposing them to medical conditions before they are born.
According to Gundersen, what the IRSN failed to mention in its report, is that while radiation levels over Europe may be ?very low,? that may not be the case near the mystery facility where the accident occurred.
?The ruthenium 106 concentrations at the detectors in Europe are [quite] low and these are very sensitive detectors,? Gundersen explained to EnviroNews. ?That said, the concentration near the release point is likely quite high, and is not ?harmless? to those who are close by. That is why pinpointing the location of the release is so important,? Gundersen continued. The esteemed industry expert also noted that the readings in the INRS report ?are from mid-October? and that those releases are ?supposedly over now.?
NPR concurred with Gundersen?s assessment, reporting, ?modeling suggests that any people within a few kilometers of the release ?
wherever it occurred ? would have needed to seek shelter to protect themselves from possible radiation exposure.? The IRSN also added that if a similar incident would have occurred within French borders, it would have required evacuation for an area with a radius of several kilometers.
As EnviroNews has reported in the past, air pollution concentrates most abundantly near its source. In the case of heavy metals and radioactive isotopes, larger particles with more mass, fall out faster and closer to the point of origin, whereas smaller particles can be carried on wind currents for hundreds or thousands or miles, falling to Earth wherever wind and precipitation carry them. The smaller and more vaporous the particle, the farther it can fly. Myriad finely disintegrated radioactive isotopes from both Chernobyl and Fukushima circled the globe for weeks following those accidents, and it has been stated by experts that to varying degrees, virtually every person on Earth has a piece of Fukushima and Chernobyl lodged inside them. Most human bodies also harbor the radioactive footprint from bomb testing ?
radiation that is still falling out and blowing around to this day.
Ruthenium 106 is a transuranic isotope created in nuclear reactors.
The element is not present in nature. It has a half-life of 373 days, meaning it takes about 10 years for it to decay away after it is born as a byproduct of the nuclear fission process.
?It?s an unusual isotope,? Anders Ringbom, Research Director of the Swedish Defence Research Agency, told NPR. ?I don?t think we have seen it since the Chernobyl accident.? The Swedish Defence Research Agency is the organization that conducts radiation monitoring for that country.
Multiple nuclear facilities exist in the region in question, the most noteworthy of which is the massive Mayak Production Association ? a plant used extensively during the Cold War to recondition nuclear fuel into bomb material. Mayak has raised eyebrows because the site has been the source of multiple past disasters, including a massive explosion in 1957 ?that rivaled the nuclear meltdowns at Fukushima and Chernobyl,? according to NPR. Still, Russian authorities are yet to acknowledge any accidental releases within their borders.
If the Russians aren?t owning the accident and the Kazakhs aren?t talking, the question is: what?s next? Gundersen pointed out the imperative task of locating the source of the incident. It would seem that only then can an assessment be made of the true ?impact on human health or the environment.?
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:33:37 +0000
From: "Falo, Gerald A CIV USARMY MEDCOM APHC (US)"
<gerald.a.falo.civ at mail.mil>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Meaning of Rem?
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Message-ID:
<B433EF8B6E41DC40A42437C6C22E3A14A13F558C at UMECHPA7F.easf.csd.disa.mil>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Oak Ridge Associated University has a nice page discussing the origin of "selected radiological and nuclear terms" "Rem" can be found here - https://www.orau.org/ptp/articlesstories/names.htm#rem.
Scrolling leads to other interesting origin stories.
Enjoy,
Jerry
________________________________
Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP
U.S. Army Public Health Center - Health Physics Division gerald.a.falo.civ at mail.mil gerald.a.falo.civ at mail.smil.mil
410-436-4852
DSN: 584-4852
-----Original Message-----
From: RadSafe [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Delvan Neville
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 6:09 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Cc: Radsafe (radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu)
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [ RadSafe ] Meaning of Rem?
All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser.
----
That's a holdover from the age of the terminology. Originally one rem was defined as "a relevant biological effect equal to that produced by one roentgen" for x-rays, and there was the 'rep' (roentgen equivalent
physical) for radiations other than photons that then combined with an RBE to get rem. In the mid-50s ICRP suggested the use of the rad instead of the rep, and the definition of the rem changed to being the product of rad * RBE instead of the old definition that tied it directly to one roentgen.
Delvan Neville
Corvallis, OR
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:07 AM Strickert, Rick (Consultant) < rstrickert at signaturescience.com> wrote:
> Why does "rem" stand for "roentgen equivalent man"? The roentgen is an
> unit of gamma exposure in air. Wouldn't the rem better stand for "rad
> equivalent man" given the rem included the Biological Quality Factor?
>
> Rick Strickert
> Austin, TX
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> Caution-http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: Caution-http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: Caution-http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: Caution-http://health.phys.iit.edu
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:39:36 -0800
From: John R Johnson <idiasjrj at gmail.com>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Meaning of Rem?
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Message-ID: <50985E11-029B-4A5C-8517-786136B0F3CF at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Gerald
Thanks for this background.
John
> On Nov 13, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Falo, Gerald A CIV USARMY MEDCOM APHC (US) <gerald.a.falo.civ at mail.mil> wrote:
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
> Oak Ridge Associated University has a nice page discussing the origin of "selected radiological and nuclear terms" "Rem" can be found here - https://www.orau.org/ptp/articlesstories/names.htm#rem.
>
> Scrolling leads to other interesting origin stories.
>
> Enjoy,
> Jerry
> ________________________________
>
> Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP
> U.S. Army Public Health Center - Health Physics Division
> gerald.a.falo.civ at mail.mil gerald.a.falo.civ at mail.smil.mil
> 410-436-4852
> DSN: 584-4852
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RadSafe [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf
> Of Delvan Neville
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 6:09 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List
> Cc: Radsafe (radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu)
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [ RadSafe ] Meaning of Rem?
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser.
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> That's a holdover from the age of the terminology. Originally one rem
> was defined as "a relevant biological effect equal to that produced by
> one roentgen" for x-rays, and there was the 'rep' (roentgen equivalent
> physical) for radiations other than photons that then combined with an RBE to get rem. In the mid-50s ICRP suggested the use of the rad instead of the rep, and the definition of the rem changed to being the product of rad * RBE instead of the old definition that tied it directly to one roentgen.
>
> Delvan Neville
> Corvallis, OR
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:07 AM Strickert, Rick (Consultant) < rstrickert at signaturescience.com> wrote:
>
>> Why does "rem" stand for "roentgen equivalent man"? The roentgen is an
>> unit of gamma exposure in air. Wouldn't the rem better stand for "rad
>> equivalent man" given the rem included the Biological Quality Factor?
>>
>> Rick Strickert
>> Austin, TX
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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:
>> Caution-http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit: Caution-http://health.phys.iit.edu
>>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> Caution-http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: Caution-http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:23:51 +0000
From: "Strickert, Rick (Consultant)" <rstrickert at signaturescience.com>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Meaning of Rem?
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Message-ID:
<e588be618b1c4be5901f8d9aa058d246 at Mail04.corp.signaturescience.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thanks to the posters who provided the historical information on rem and the various links. It's interesting that, according to Ron Kathren, Herbert Parker's cold contributed to the choice of an abbreviation.
I did a little more searching and found this excerpt from _The Dragon's Tail: Radiation Safety in the Manhattan Project, 1942-1946_ (Barton C. Hacker, Univ. of California Press, 1987, pp. 41-42; https://books.google.com/books?id=H2EzvHupWRkC&pg=PA41&f=false):
"In the health physics section [at the University of Chicago's Met Lab], research fell chiefly to Herbert Parker's [1910-1984] protection measurements group. Instruments were not the sole concern. Parker also faced the old problem of finding satisfactory units to relate the physics of ionization to biological effects.
"The roentgen was defined only for X and gamma rays, but the project faced, Parker noted, the 'practical problem of adding the doses received by a large group of workers from quantum radiation, alpha, beta, and neutron radiation.' The answer was a common unit. The key choice was to base it on energy absorbed rather than on ions produced. The 'rep' (roentgen equivalent physical) measured dose as energy absorbed per unit mass (ergs per gram) equivalent at a point in the body to exposure in roentgens. since biological effects varied with kind of ray, Parker derived a second unit that included a biological factor. Termed RBE (Relative Biological Effectiveness), it was found by experiment for each kind of radiation. The measure of a biological dose was then the product of rep time RBE. Parker called it the 'rem' (roentgen equivalent mammal or man). 'Roentgen equivalent biological' might have made better logic; he rejected that term when he learned that hearers might con
fuse rep
and reb. Parker completed the new system in early 1944. [Health Physics Division Chief Robert S.] Stone proposed it for the project at a Met Lab meeting on 7 March. Simple, thoughtful, and convenient, Parker's system won many users during the way. Security prevented its public dissemination until 1948, but not until the late 1950s did rem, the dose unit, fully displace roentgen, the exposure unit, as the basic measure in radiological safety."
Another online reference is Herbert Parker and William C. Roesch, "Units, Radiation: Historical Development" in George L. Clark, ed., _The Encyclopedia of X-ray and Gamma Rays_ (1963), 1102-1107 (https://archive.org/stream/encyclopediaofxr00clar#page/1102/mode/1up).
Rick Strickert
Austin TX
-----Original Message-----
From: RadSafe [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Falo, Gerald A CIV USARMY MEDCOM APHC (US)
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:34 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Meaning of Rem? (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Oak Ridge Associated University has a nice page discussing the origin of "selected radiological and nuclear terms" "Rem" can be found here - https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://www.orau.org/ptp/articlesstories/names.htm%23rem.&c=E,1,UHEgF_a-LoasBJwoQX_kXl6eUut_UAS47C4vjGIdIaa3W8mb3vrxNn9u0iEuHWfa0KCLdiMsDwgPbKb9VF5IajJIzgRiNP6zvjHhvBCisfo,&typo=1
Scrolling leads to other interesting origin stories.
Enjoy,
Jerry
________________________________
Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP
U.S. Army Public Health Center - Health Physics Division gerald.a.falo.civ at mail.mil gerald.a.falo.civ at mail.smil.mil
410-436-4852
DSN: 584-4852
-----Original Message-----
From: RadSafe [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Delvan Neville
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 6:09 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Cc: Radsafe (radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu)
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [ RadSafe ] Meaning of Rem?
All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser.
----
That's a holdover from the age of the terminology. Originally one rem was defined as "a relevant biological effect equal to that produced by one roentgen" for x-rays, and there was the 'rep' (roentgen equivalent
physical) for radiations other than photons that then combined with an RBE to get rem. In the mid-50s ICRP suggested the use of the rad instead of the rep, and the definition of the rem changed to being the product of rad * RBE instead of the old definition that tied it directly to one roentgen.
Delvan Neville
Corvallis, OR
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:07 AM Strickert, Rick (Consultant) < rstrickert at signaturescience.com> wrote:
> Why does "rem" stand for "roentgen equivalent man"? The roentgen is an
> unit of gamma exposure in air. Wouldn't the rem better stand for "rad
> equivalent man" given the rem included the Biological Quality Factor?
>
> Rick Strickert
> Austin, TX
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> Caution-https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://health.phys.iit.e
> du/radsaferules.html&c=E,1,JQmOYPUZAFnUaYUP4_kB5uHln97uzIsJ39wJflzP24Z
> m67DSOBmfzzyzK6lSyqbCMulS8VSAOGL5DEQ30YVGkY-25yN21_Kco_CaW03TgpI25YHSQ
> Z8,&typo=1
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit:
> Caution-https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://health.phys.iit.e
> du&c=E,1,JcUGKyqGJ_ohfvuTz808JAV9P6umDwJzX8MUG31ow5qEo_nV49h7LhSTRXMSs
> u2r-CDfnOdP-e-dL6wZDblkq6nza1tlv0JZAX50tWiYGn0,&typo=1
>
_______________________________________________
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: Caution-https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html&c=E,1,CaFoMzBbJRXBI6TGjUkF_IuNoLbYOQbXMlAa6IvLy9vM636yRYuCWJaZkW49U1Za1ufQ_8DgzNWgCeBBuSyFutRNnhTIfrI6TKHgQsbAfRagQg,,&typo=1
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: Caution-https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://health.phys.iit.edu&c=E,1,kr_gefUUCRHNF-YGyRJ44lJg2C5erVQ0jN_7Gma4AIyHWfO0MBoA3x35pdS0JPLKSu6jLAkOqU2YumHUYGZNAKd6PNz-E_7DBNq64WkMdID1EyK9ASCV&typo=1
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
_______________________________________________
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: https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html&c=E,1,rfM20x2yZ17oo-Mfwi2LzUVjB8BYF7u_HphYAnN_lHFnLant0ItMWzFSpeXz0kpXFW6kCp_2rJHBotmp9ZqnM85cvwDR6LEnFGkrK4J_riabMP6mpGZ6KQ,,&typo=1
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://health.phys.iit.edu&c=E,1,azvoNnv08qz72U5n1pnN_dh74nqJyESaYrFlbVU2SMEfwQIUSUuMaRvvEmfb5SLmuK3l6W3ZQ4bTiebIV_K2O0Pr_ZoqtxAO7Z6qb7ATFQ,,&typo=1
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
RadSafe mailing list
RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
------------------------------
End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 2338, Issue 1
****************************************
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list