[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RADSAFE digest 3188
----- Original Message -----
From: <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 6:07 AM
Subject: RADSAFE digest 3188
> RADSAFE Digest 3188
>
> Topics covered in this issue include:
>
> 1) TECHNICIAN POSITIONS AT FERNALD
> by "Cecilia Searcy" <CSearcy@thermoretec.com>
> 2) INS Nuclear Laundry Court Decision
> by "Radiological Health Unit" <raldrich@nysnet.net>
> 3) CORRECTION TO FERNALD TECHNICIAN POSTING (WRONG AREA CODE)
> by "Cecilia Searcy" <CSearcy@thermoretec.com>
> 4) Re: Sterilization
> by BLHamrick@aol.com
> 5) Re: Sterilization
> by Jim Hardeman <Jim_Hardeman@mail.dnr.state.ga.us>
> 6) Re: "Cold" Sterilization -Advertising/PR spin
> by RadiumProj@cs.com
> 7) wrong DOT label
> by Irene K Sakimoto <isakimot@hawaii.edu>
> 8) EU Directive
> by "Pier Giuseppe Ramella" <piramell@tin.it>
> 9) RE: wrong DOT label
> by Health Physics <hp@isotopeproducts.com>
> 10) Re: wrong DOT label
> by Dave Derenzo <dave@uic.edu>
> 11) re: wrong DOT label
> by JHageman@swri.edu
> 12) re: RE: wrong DOT label
> by JHageman@swri.edu
> 13) Re: wrong DOT label
> by Gv1@aol.com
> 14) HP Technician Opening - St Louis
> by "Rex Ayers" <rayers@mail.win.org>
> 15) Re: wrong DOT label
> by Gv1@aol.com
> 16) dental film processing
> by "Gregory, Kent (DHS)" <Kent.Gregory@dhs.sa.gov.au>
> 17) dose conversion factor for radon exposition
> by BRISSON Nicolas <nicolas.brisson@opri.fr>
> 18) Re: wrong DOT label
> by Dave Brown <david.brown@nist.gov>
> 19) Re: dose conversion factor for radon exposition
> by Duane Schmidt <DWS2@nrc.gov>
> 20) Chernobyl study of the International Agency for Research on Cance
> by "Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@aecl.ca>
> 21) Re: wrong DOT label
> by Dave Derenzo <dave@uic.edu>
> 22) Re: wrong DOT label
> by "Alan E. Watts" <wattsa@oak.cats.ohiou.edu>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 12:25:26 -0400
> From: "Cecilia Searcy" <CSearcy@thermoretec.com>
> To: RADSAFE@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: TECHNICIAN POSITIONS AT FERNALD
> Message-ID: <OFFE180C5B.DDEF56E7-ON852568E1.00578E0B@thermoretec.com>
>
> There are long term permanent positions available for five ANSI 3.1
> qualified Sr. Radiological Control Technicians at the Fernald Site in
Ross,
> Ohio. The staffing date is 6/5/00. The particulars for the Sr. level
> positions are:
>
> $19.5/hour starting salary, $20.00/hour with NRRPT
> $1000.00 incentive bonus, with $500.00 available when qualified (RCT if
> necessary and drug screen)
> 10 paid holidays
> 40 hours sick leave
> 2 weeks vacation
> Full benefits (medical, dental, vision)
> 401K with up to 4.5% company match
>
> Interested parties call 1-800-818-5606, send e-mail to
> csearcy@thermoretec.com, and/or fax resume to 423-481-0121.
>
> Cecilia Searcy
> Thermo Retec Field Division
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 11:51:30 -0400
> From: "Radiological Health Unit" <raldrich@nysnet.net>
> To: "RADSAFE" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: INS Nuclear Laundry Court Decision
> Message-ID: <000201bfbf56$8ce87340$7a86480a@labor.state.ny.us>
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01BFBF2D.13115600
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the US District Court =
> Decision in the INS suit? I've tried the NM District Court's web site, =
> but it appears one must have a password to access decisions.
>
> ************************************************************************
> Clayton Bradt, CHP <raldrich@nysnet.net> phone: 518/457-1202
> Assoc. Radiophysicist fax: =
> 518/485-7406
> NYS Dept. of Labor
> Radiological Health Unit
> Blg.12, Rm 169
> State Office Campus
> Albany, NY 12240
> ***********************************************************************
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01BFBF2D.13115600
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
> http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2>Does anyone know where I can =
> get a copy of=20
> the US District Court Decision in the INS suit? I've tried the NM =
> District=20
> Court's web site, but it appears one must have a password to access=20
> decisions.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New"=20
> size=3D2>****************************************************************=
> ********<BR>Clayton=20
> Bradt, CHP <<A=20
> href=3D"mailto:raldrich@nysnet.net";>raldrich@nysnet.net</A>> &nbs=
> p; =20
> phone: 518/457-1202<BR>Assoc.=20
> Radiophysicist  =
> ; =
> &=
> nbsp; =20
> fax: 518/485-7406<BR>NYS Dept. of=20
> Labor<BR>Radiological Health Unit<BR>Blg.12, Rm 169<BR>State Office=20
> Campus<BR>Albany, NY=20
> 12240<BR>****************************************************************=
> *******</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01BFBF2D.13115600--
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 13:20:59 -0400
> From: "Cecilia Searcy" <CSearcy@thermoretec.com>
> To: RADSAFE@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: CORRECTION TO FERNALD TECHNICIAN POSTING (WRONG AREA CODE)
> Message-ID: <OFE41C677D.CA92EB27-ON852568E1.005F2DC0@thermoretec.com>
>
> There are long term permanent positions available for five ANSI 3.1
> qualified Sr. Radiological Control Technicians at the Fernald Site in
Ross,
> Ohio. The staffing date is 6/5/00. The particulars for the Sr. level
> positions are:
>
> $19.5/hour starting salary, $20.00/hour with NRRPT
> $1000.00 incentive bonus, with $500.00 available when qualified (RCT if
> necessary and drug screen)
> 10 paid holidays
> 40 hours sick leave
> 2 weeks vacation
> Full benefits (medical, dental, vision)
> 401K with up to 4.5% company match
>
> Interested parties call 1-800-818-5606, send e-mail to
> csearcy@thermoretec.com, and/or fax resume to 865-481-0121.
>
> Cecilia Searcy
> Thermo Retec Field Division
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:15:40 EDT
> From: BLHamrick@aol.com
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: Sterilization
> Message-ID: <c0.3c1ecd9.2652ea4c@aol.com>
>
> In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 11:34:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jim
Hardeman <Jim_Hardeman@mail.dnr.state.ga.us> writes:
>
> <<"Similar to a microwave oven, the SureBeam(R) system uses ordinary
electricity as its energy source to pasteurize food >>
>
> Who wants to point out to Huisken Meats that this is still "radiation?"
>
> Barbara L. Hamrick
> BLHamrick@aol.com
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:49:01 -0500
> From: Jim Hardeman <Jim_Hardeman@mail.dnr.state.ga.us>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: Sterilization
> Message-ID: <s921601e.080@mail.dnr.state.ga.us>
>
> Sounds to me like THEY know that it's still radiation ... but that they
don't want to let anybody else know.
>
> Jim
>
> >>> <BLHamrick@aol.com> 5/16/2000 13:25:22 >>>
> In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 11:34:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jim
Hardeman <Jim_Hardeman@mail.dnr.state.ga.us> writes:
>
> <<"Similar to a microwave oven, the SureBeam(R) system uses ordinary
electricity as its energy source to pasteurize food >>
>
> Who wants to point out to Huisken Meats that this is still "radiation?"
>
> Barbara L. Hamrick
> BLHamrick@aol.com
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
!
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:15:37 EDT
> From: RadiumProj@cs.com
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: "Cold" Sterilization -Advertising/PR spin
> Message-ID: <38.6025894.26530669@cs.com>
>
> In a message dated 5/16/00 2:21:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> BLHamrick@aol.com writes:
>
> > In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 11:34:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Jim
> > Hardeman <Jim_Hardeman@mail.dnr.state.ga.us> writes:
> >
> > <<"Similar to a microwave oven, the SureBeam(R) system uses ordinary
> > electricity as its energy source to pasteurize food >>
> >
> > Who wants to point out to Huisken Meats that this is still "radiation?"
> >
> > Barbara L. Hamrick
> ==============
> What they're doing is quite understandable. It's all just spin. Remember
how
> quickly "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance" [NMR] imaging became "Magnetic
Resonance
> Imaging" [MRI] to avoid use of the word nuclear?
>
> Perhaps the new motto for Huisken Meats and Titan Industries' new "cold
> sterilization" procedure can be a modification of the GE jingle:
>
> "GE- we bring good things to life".
>
> Instead the "cold sterilization" advertising theme perhaps should be:
>
> "Huisken[or Titan or whoever] -We bring beta things to life"
>
> Stewart Farber
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:58:47 -1000
> From: Irene K Sakimoto <isakimot@hawaii.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: wrong DOT label
> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0005161052460.763-100000@uhunix5>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> We recently received a package of P-32 radioisotopes labeled with a White
> I but measured 1.2 mR/hr on the exterior of the package. Therefore, it
> should have been labeled with a Yellow II, right?
>
> We called the shipper and the carrier about the error, but should we have
> notified anyone else?
>
> Thank you for any insight you may have on this topic.
>
> Irene Sakimoto
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:54:14 +0200
> From: "Pier Giuseppe Ramella" <piramell@tin.it>
> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: EU Directive
> Message-ID: <000501bfbf78$ff51e0c0$bc47d8d4@tin.it>
>
> Jay,
>
> here is the link with European Directive:
>
> http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1996/en_396L0029.html
>
> PSE note that EU Directive is not obligatory in member States: it must
> became part of the states legislation.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Pete
>
> Mr Pier Giuseppe Ramella, Qualified Expert free lance professional
> Member AIRP (Italian Radiation Protection Association), affiliated IRPA
> Via Fara, 48
> 28100 Novara
> Italy
>
> Phone 0039-0321-476606
> Fax 0039-0321-476606
> email:
> piramell@tin.it
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:31:43 -0700
> From: Health Physics <hp@isotopeproducts.com>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: RE: wrong DOT label
> Message-ID: <01BFBF43.78904CA0@D2_SOUP>
>
> It's good to notify the RSO at the company who sent the P-32 to you and do
> request a document to confirm that they made a mistake, and he/she will
> make the decision to contact DOT or not, It's not your responsibility.
>
> Tam Huynh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Irene K Sakimoto [SMTP:isakimot@hawaii.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 2:06 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: wrong DOT label
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> We recently received a package of P-32 radioisotopes labeled with a White
> I but measured 1.2 mR/hr on the exterior of the package. Therefore, it
> should have been labeled with a Yellow II, right?
>
> We called the shipper and the carrier about the error, but should we have
> notified anyone else?
>
> Thank you for any insight you may have on this topic.
>
> Irene Sakimoto
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:40:50 -0500
> From: Dave Derenzo <dave@uic.edu>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: wrong DOT label
> Message-ID: <4.2.2.20000516162936.00aa18c0@tigger.cc.uic.edu>
>
> At 04:06 PM 05/16/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >Hi Everyone,
> >
> >We recently received a package of P-32 radioisotopes labeled with a White
> >I but measured 1.2 mR/hr on the exterior of the package. Therefore, it
> >should have been labeled with a Yellow II, right?
>
> Maybe, it depends on their instrument and yours. It just might be a
> difference in how measurements were made (ion chamber vs g.m., slightly
> different distances, geometry etc.) Remember, small detectors (g.m.) can
> get closer to the surface than large detectors (ion chambers). P-32 is a
> high energy beta emitter, so you are probably measuring bremmstrahlung
> x-rays of fairly low energy and different instruments will respond
> differently (look at the energy response curve for your instrument). BTW,
> for those of you at power plants, do you correct for the distance of the
> detector from the surface of the package? I remember an NRC draft reg
> guide about this many years ago.
>
> >We called the shipper and the carrier about the error, but should we have
> >notified anyone else?
>
> Assuming it is a real error, there are no notifications that I know of at
> these levels.
>
> >Thank you for any insight you may have on this topic.
> >
> >Irene Sakimoto
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >************************************************************************
> >The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> >information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>
> Dave Derenzo, RSO (dave@uic.edu)
> UIC Radiation Safety Section, M/C 932
> Phones: Voice (312) 996-1177 Fax: (312) 996-8776
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:45:37 CDT
> From: JHageman@swri.edu
> To: <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: re: wrong DOT label
> Message-ID: <vines.2Dg8++4Q6tA@D26VS046A.CCF.SwRI.EDU>
>
> I wanted to share this with the Radsafe list (for their information).
>
> If the shipment came by air you must report this to the nearest FAA Civil
> Aviation Security Office as soon as practicable. {Ref. 49CFR175.31(a)}
> Discrepancies which must be reported are those involving hazaradous
materials
> which are improperly described, certified, LABELED, marked, or packaged...
> {Ref. 49CFR175.31(b)} Also, this shipment should have been in a Type A
> package.
>
> Thanks, John P. Hageman, CHP, Radiation Safety Officer, Southwest Research
> Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, San Antonio, TX 78238
> Ph: 210-522-2633, Fax: 210-522-5720, jph@swri.edu
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Original Message - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Hi Everyone,
>
> We recently received a package of P-32 radioisotopes labeled with a White
> I but measured 1.2 mR/hr on the exterior of the package. Therefore, it
> should have been labeled with a Yellow II, right?
>
> We called the shipper and the carrier about the error, but should we have
> notified anyone else?
>
> Thank you for any insight you may have on this topic.
>
> Irene Sakimoto
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - End of Original Message - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:55:48 CDT
> From: JHageman@swri.edu
> To: <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: re: RE: wrong DOT label
> Message-ID: <vines.2Dg8+VDQ6tA@D26VS046A.CCF.SwRI.EDU>
>
> I don't want to belabor the point, but the the regulation [49CFR175.31(a)]
> clearly states: "Each person that discovers a discrepancy...
shall...notify
> the FAA...
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Original Message - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> It's good to notify the RSO at the company who sent the P-32 to you and do
> request a document to confirm that they made a mistake, and he/she will
> make the decision to contact DOT or not, It's not your responsibility.
>
> Tam Huynh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Irene K Sakimoto [SMTP:isakimot@hawaii.edu]
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:05:31 EDT
> From: Gv1@aol.com
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: wrong DOT label
> Message-ID: <9.5871150.2653586b@aol.com>
>
> Yes, the package should have been a Yellow-II.
>
> I'm at home, but there is a section in 10CFR20.19?? which says go to
> 10CFR71.4? concerning package dose rates. In 10CFR71 I believe the only
dose
> rate trigger points are the package contact limits which are 200/1000
mrem/hr
> and a TI of 10. Read 10CFR71, but I don't believe there is a
reportability
> issue to the NRC.
>
> This sounds like it would be more under the jurisdiction of the DOT.
>
> Best I can do on short notice and I can't recall a good number for the
DOT.
> This is the perfect time to put together your own little reportability
> manual. I believe the response time to the NRC is "1 hour" and this
leaves
> absolutely no time to look up references.
>
> Glen Vickers
> glen.vickers@ucm.com
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 21:05:02 -0500
> From: "Rex Ayers" <rayers@mail.win.org>
> To: "'Radsafe'" <RADSAFE@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: HP Technician Opening - St Louis
> Message-ID: <000301bfbfa4$503bc7a0$8f32b8cc@new1>
>
> Mallinckrodt Inc., has an immediate opening at their radiopharmaceutical
> manufacturing facility (St. Louis, MO) for a Health Physics Technician on
> the second shift.
>
> Typical duties include performing radiation and contamination level
surveys,
> collection and analysis of samples to determine radioactive content,
support
> of production / maintenance activities and calibration of HP equipment.
You
> will also be part of the emergency response team. Other duties include
> performance of audits and revision of standard operating procedures. Work
> hours will be approximately 4 PM to 12 midnight Sunday through Thursday.
> Earlier start, or later stop times, may be required at times.
>
> Qualification include: 2 years college science or equivalent, 2 years HP
> experience, good written, verbal and interpersonal skills, a willingness
to
> work overtime and respond to emergency calls as needed. Self motivation
and
> a desire to work in a fast paced manufacturing environment required.
>
> Mallinckrodt offers a competitive salary and comprehensive benefits
package.
>
> If you are interested, please send (e-mail or mail)
> resume, including salary requirements, to:
>
> Address: Human Resources Department
> Mallinckrodt Inc.
> 2703 Wagner Place
> Maryland Heights, MO 63043
>
> E-mail: Rex.Ayers@MKG.com
>
>
> Rex Ayers, CHP
> Health Physicist II
> Mallinckrodt Inc.
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:20:01 EDT
> From: Gv1@aol.com
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: wrong DOT label
> Message-ID: <28.5b6c8f9.26535bd1@aol.com>
>
> The comments about the type of instrument used, large ion chamber vs.
small
> diameter compensated GM are certainly valid. If someone were to be
> non-conservative and use a large volume detector, aren't they taking risk
> upon themselves?
>
> We use a small diameter, compensated GM detectors for all of our package
> measurements. I realize, that a small-diameter pulse counter may read
higher
> than an ion chamber in low energy fields and different geometries, but I
> ensure that I never get any calls about exceeding dose rate limits.
>
> There is no cost difference in shipping White-I vs. Yellow-II, so I'd
think
> someone would use the most conservative meter?
>
> Glen Vickers
> glen.vickers@ucm.com
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 16:51:13 +0930
> From: "Gregory, Kent (DHS)" <Kent.Gregory@dhs.sa.gov.au>
> To: "'radsafe'" <RADSAFE@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: dental film processing
> Message-ID: <0B8861F835E0D31185CF00508B95AB402DD361@SAGEMSH0006>
>
> Dear Radsafers,
> One of my jobs involves checking the intra-oral dental film processing
> methods used in South Australian dental clinics. The most common film
> processing technique in use here is Kodak's time-temperature method with
GBX
> chemicals. This method calls for 1:4 dilution of the developer with
water.
> The developing time is then determined by the temperature of the solution.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:11:00 +0200
> From: BRISSON Nicolas <nicolas.brisson@opri.fr>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: dose conversion factor for radon exposition
> Message-ID: <A5440932DF5ED311A0460090278743BB21F008@OPRI02>
>
> Hi Radsafers
>
>
> In order to estimate the dose due to radon exposition I used the methods
> of ICRP and the dose conversion factor presented by James and al. (1988)
> based on the value of the equilibrium factor and the unattached
> fraction.
>
> I'd like to know if other dose conversion factor exist and in which
> publication I could find them.
> Please don't send any web adresses I unfortunately don't have access to
> the net.
>
>
> Nicolas Brisson
> Radiation safety engineer
> OPRI
> nicolas.brisson@opri.fr
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 07:17:56 -0400
> From: Dave Brown <david.brown@nist.gov>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: wrong DOT label
> Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20000517071431.00ac6ed0@mailserver3.nist.gov>
>
>
> >We recently received a package of P-32 radioisotopes labeled with a White
> >I but measured 1.2 mR/hr on the exterior of the package. Therefore, it
> >should have been labeled with a Yellow II, right?
> >
> >We called the shipper and the carrier about the error, but should we have
> >notified anyone else?
>
> Irene,
>
> I stand corrected.....I believe the reporting requirements of 49 CFR
> 175.31, apply to this situation. Please review this section of the reg
and
> go from there.....I'm guessing that this shipment was carried by aircraft
> somewhere along its journey.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dave Brown, CHP
> National Institute of Standards and Technology
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 3543
> Bldg 235 Rm A136
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3543
>
> 301-975-5810 - office
> 301-921-9847 - fax
> david.brown@nist.gov
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> *The content of this message has not been endorsed by my employer*
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 07:20:53 -0400
> From: Duane Schmidt <DWS2@nrc.gov>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: dose conversion factor for radon exposition
> Message-ID: <s9224872.039@nrcsmtp.nrc.gov>
>
> Nicolas,
>
> I'm not sure what value you obtained from James et al., as I don't have
that. ICRP Report 65 (from 1994) recommends a dose conversion
convention--which is not exactly a dose conversion coefficient, but a way to
approximate the dose that would have equal detriment to a given exposure to
radon progeny. That report gives values of 1.1 mSv per (mJ h per m^3) for
exposures at home and 1.4 mSv per (mJ h per m^3) for exposures at work. In
historical units, these are 4 mSv per WLM and 5 mSv per WLM, respectively.
See Tables 7 and 8 of ICRP 65.
>
> Hope this helps. I'm sure others will have more.
>
> Duane.
>
> Duane Schmidt, CHP
> U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
> NMSS/DWM/DCB
> dws2@nrc.gov
>
> >>> BRISSON Nicolas <nicolas.brisson@opri.fr> 5/17/2000 5:28:16 AM >>>
> Hi Radsafers
>
>
> In order to estimate the dose due to radon exposition I used the methods
> of ICRP and the dose conversion factor presented by James and al. (1988)
> based on the value of the equilibrium factor and the unattached
> fraction.
>
> I'd like to know if other dose conversion factor exist and in which
> publication I could find them.
> Please don't send any web adresses I unfortunately don't have access to
> the net.
>
>
> Nicolas Brisson
> Radiation safety engineer
> OPRI
> nicolas.brisson@opri.fr
>
!
> !
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 07:34:36 -0400
> From: "Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@aecl.ca>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Chernobyl study of the International Agency for Research on Cance
> Message-ID: <A1C6903E2378CF11A60900805FD4DDF2019E78D6@drs02.crl.aecl.ca>
>
>
> this, from the Greenpeace web site....
>
> http://www.greenpeace.org/~nuclear/reactor/chernbrief.html
> Berlin, April 20th, 2000
> Briefing Paper On the 14th anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe (26th
> April 2000)
>
> Chernobyl: Over 50,000 Thyroid cancer cases in Gomel region / Belarus
> expected
> There will be more than 50,000 cases of thyroid cancer caused by the
> Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe in the most contaminated region around Gomel
> among those who were children of the age of 0-4 when the catastrophe
> occurred. This is the result of a recent study of the International Agency
> for Research on Cancer (IARC) at Lyon / France, a part of the World Health
> Organisation (WHO).
> The EU-financed study speaks of a "dramatic increase in thyroid cancer"
> observed among those who were children and lived in territories
contaminated
> by fall-out from the Chernobyl accident. Predictions of risk over life
were
> made using age and sex-specific thyroid cancer rates from England and
Wales
> as baseline and a multiplicative "relative risk" model. The result is an
> increase from 157 (1997) to 51,345 cases of thyroid cancer over the
lifetime
> of those exposed as children to the radioactive fallout for the Gomel
> region. This means that 36.4% of the 141,068 Belorussians, who were
between
> 0-4 years old and in the Gomel region when Chernobyl happened and who are
> now between 14 and 18 years old, will receive thyroid cancer in their
> lifetime. The basis for this pessimistic calculation is the fact, that
"the
> discrepancies between the observed and expected numbers is outstanding,
> particularly in Gomel region, where the number of cases is at least ten
> times higher than the predictions". Less dramatic, but still very worrying
> are the results from the neighboring Mogilev region where, the study
> predicts, 5,023 cases of thyroid cancer or 5.0% of the population of the
> Mogilev region of the relevant age.
> These figures represent only the latest results of research on the
> consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe. Other consequences include;
other
> kinds of cancer (e.g. leukaemia), thyroid disfunctions (without cancer)
and
> damage to the immunity system among thousands of people not only in the
> Gomel and Mogilev region, but also in other regions of Belarus, in Ukraine
> and in Russia as well as the 600,000 "liquidators". The "liquidators" are
> those people who worked at Chernobyl in 1986/87 to limit the consequences
of
> the catastrophe and to construct the "sarcophagus" over what was left of
> Chernobyl's reactor No.4. Apart from the tragedy of deaths and diseases as
a
> consequence of the Chernobyl disaster, Balarus, Ukraine and Russia have
had
> to cope with the severe social and economic consequences of Chernobyl.
More
> than 350,000 people had to leave their homes and to find space and work in
> other parts of their countries. The economic damage of Chernobyl to these
> countries is in the tens of billion of dollars.
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 07:38:50 -0500
> From: Dave Derenzo <dave@uic.edu>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: wrong DOT label
> Message-ID: <4.2.2.20000517064444.00a594d0@tigger.cc.uic.edu>
>
> Dear Glen and Irene,
>
> Using an energy compensated GM detector is certainly a good idea.
However,
> the following specs are interesting.
>
> Eberline HP-270 Energy Compensated GM Detector- There is scant information
> in their current catalog which simply states "Energy Range: 30 keV to 6
> MeV" with no mention of accuracy. A much older catalog from the 1970s
> however indicates energy response of +/- 20% from 40 keV to 1.25 MeV. It
> also includes an energy response curve that seems to indicate the detector
> under-responds by about 50% at 40 keV and drops off rapidly below that
value.
>
> Ludlum 44-38 Energy Compensated GM Detector - The current catalog states
> "Within +/- 15% of true value from 50 keV -1.25 MeV. There is no energy
> response curve.
>
> I am pretty sure that other energy compensated GM detectors have similar
> specs. So, if you are measuring a bremmstrahlung spectrum with such a
> detector, you might expect a reading that is too low by maybe 50%.
>
> A similar look at the energy response info for ion chambers yields the
> following:
>
> Eberline RO-20 - +/- 30% from 8 keV to 6 Mev and +/- 15% from 33 keV to 6
> MeV, implying there is greater error in the range of 8 to 33 keV. There
is
> no energy response curve in the catalog. A look at the old catalog for
> different models such as the RO-2 indicates a fairly flat response that
> drops off starting at about 15 keV with the slide open, and drops off
> starting at about 35 keV with the slide closed.
>
> Victoreen 471 - Within 10% for gamma and x-rays from 6 to 300 keV with
beta
> cap off: within 10% from 25 keV to 2 MeV - and to 105% of N-16 gamma rays
> (most prominent gamma is 6.13 MeV) as tested at the University of
> Lowell. The energy response curve shows under-response at low energies.
>
> So which is more conservative, the G.M. detector that you can get closer
> but that could significantly under-respond, or the ion chamber which is
> more accurate but cannot be brought close to the surface? Tough call if
> you are trying to measure exposure rates from P-32 bremmstrhalung that is
> partially attenuated by the vial shield. All things considered, I think
> that you could very easily get a +/- 50% to 100% difference in readings
for
> such a situation, and that you need to interpret readings very carefully
> before making a report to a regulatory agency alleging
> non-compliance. Both parties have probably made their best efforts to
make
> the measurement. Like my former boss used to say, "Where are the
> bodies?" My opinion is that unless there was a significant safety problem
> caused by this difference, give the shipper the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Dave Derenzo
>
> At 09:28 PM 05/16/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >The comments about the type of instrument used, large ion chamber vs.
small
> >diameter compensated GM are certainly valid. If someone were to be
> >non-conservative and use a large volume detector, aren't they taking risk
> >upon themselves?
> >
> >We use a small diameter, compensated GM detectors for all of our package
> >measurements. I realize, that a small-diameter pulse counter may read
higher
> >than an ion chamber in low energy fields and different geometries, but I
> >ensure that I never get any calls about exceeding dose rate limits.
> >
> >There is no cost difference in shipping White-I vs. Yellow-II, so I'd
think
> >someone would use the most conservative meter?
> >
> >Glen Vickers
> >glen.vickers@ucm.com
> >************************************************************************
> >The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> >information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>
> Dave Derenzo, RSO (dave@uic.edu)
> UIC Radiation Safety Section, M/C 932
> Phones: Voice (312) 996-1177 Fax: (312) 996-8776
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 08:59:48 -0400
> From: "Alan E. Watts" <wattsa@oak.cats.ohiou.edu>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: wrong DOT label
> Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20000517085030.00949bd0@oak.cats.ohiou.edu>
>
> Did the package contain dry ice? Possibly the dry ice shielded the
> contents enough to keep the shipper's dose rate below a YII value and by
> the time it got to you the dry ice melted or shifted when you performed
> your measurement?
>
> Alan Watts
> RSO
> Ohio University
> wattsa@ohio.edu
>
> At 09:30 PM 5/16/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >The comments about the type of instrument used, large ion chamber vs.
small
> >diameter compensated GM are certainly valid. If someone were to be
> >non-conservative and use a large volume detector, aren't they taking risk
> >upon themselves?
> >
> >We use a small diameter, compensated GM detectors for all of our package
> >measurements. I realize, that a small-diameter pulse counter may read
higher
> >than an ion chamber in low energy fields and different geometries, but I
> >ensure that I never get any calls about exceeding dose rate limits.
> >
> >There is no cost difference in shipping White-I vs. Yellow-II, so I'd
think
> >someone would use the most conservative meter?
> >
> >Glen Vickers
> >glen.vickers@ucm.com
> >************************************************************************
> >The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> >information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RADSAFE Digest 3188
> **************************
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html