Who are you WITH? Re(3)($$): facility decommissioning question

[Emil Murat <kerrembaev@YAHOO.COM>]

Greetings,



Jim and John Doe #....,



You are absolutely right about they and we!



To me, it does not really matter if I am correct or

incorrect in this particular instance.

You know the Health Physics as "science" reserves many

ways to solve the problem and Tim just needs to have

his job done.

Job is job.

I offered an advice.



Nevertheless,



You have raised an interesting question.

Quote:

- -------------------------------------

 "Then when the "rad protectionists," ICRP/NRPB

(as with NCRP/EPA/NRC/DOE in the US) change

regulations again, many more

thousands of very profitable hours and millions of $

(EUs) can keep the

funds for rad protection flowing, including many good

meetings and

conferences in nice locations, for more generations!!"

- ---------------------------------------

We y'all know that!



I would like to modify your point.



The new Question is:



Who are you, Jim and John Doe #..., and are you US or

THEM?



Are you with us or with them?



Beside from the topic:



I read it somewhere a L'ong time ago.



The quote: "If you are NOT with us, you are AGAINST

us".



I belive, that expression is too extreme for the

situation.



However,



Back to the topic:



1. They were/are/will be-? "milking that COW" for many

years.



1.2 And NOBODY gonna give up his live-hood just

because you or I, he or she think/thinks that THEY

were/are incorrect.



2. We, I and You-? need to take it and put it in our

hands.



3.1 I am not trying to be a "Saint" here and I do not

want to pretend that I know what is the best for

everyone! 

I am talking about a practical way.



4.1 I think, I know what is good, One Day at a Time,

for me and my family.

 

4.2 I think, I know what is good for others because if

others will not have enough heat, they will come to my

home looking for it. 

And I really.... love my home and my heat....



4.3 Again, I know what is good for me THROUGH the

interests of OTHERS.



So what am I talking about, here?



I talking about the ENERGY.



IN THE NEAR FUTURE,WITHOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY THERE WILL

BE NOT ENOUGH USABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY FOR ALL OF

US(period)



It does not matter who ya'll: greens or reds, whites

or blacks, yellows or oranges, Christians or Muslims,

Americans or non-Americans, Southerns or Yankee, BEIR

V or BEIR XX V, NIMBYs or non-NIMBYs (period)



"The Forth Law of Thermodynamics" Says:



"The colors and ideologies have a tendency to

disappear when it is 20 degrees below ZERO."



Capice?



You have a good and safe day, too.



Emil.





You wrote:

>>>>

From: Muckerheide <muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET>



I think you have offered an incorrect answer.

It seems from ccurrent practice that the correct

answer is to clean up just

enough to meet regulations.  Then when the "rad

protectionists," ICRP/NRPB

(as with NCRP/EPA/NRC/DOE in the US) change

regulations again, many more

thousands of very profitable hours and millions of $

(EUs) can keep the

funds for rad protection flowing, including many good

meetings and

conferences in nice locations, for more generations!!

So, study the paperwork and plan accordingly! (Perhaps

it would also be

consistent with current policy to spread the H3 and

C14 on the site at below

current limits to complete this project and to provide

even more useless

work for "rad protection" in the future?)Regards,

Jim===========> 



I wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

Tim,> > 

<snip> Are you asking, what paper work needs to be

done to> released the site?> 

> Or what are radiation and contamination levels for

the> unconditional release?

> > If it is the paper work, you will have to spend

some

> time to study the local Regs....> > > If levels.> >

Then,> 

> Clean it up, until you can NOT humanely, possibly

> "physically", and "statistically" justifiably see

any> traces of C-14, H-3.> 

> The Laws and Regulations are always changing.> 

> It is a good thing for the lawyers and regulators

that

> "regular" people can not defend them selves in the

> "court of law" because there is always a some new

law> we have not heard of)> 

> No win situation.> > Back to the subject:> 

> So, If in the near future, UK may change the

> regulatory requirements then your company may have

to

> pay for another decommissioning....> > So, Clean it

all!> > 

> The battle, almost positively, will be over the>

MDA's....and LLD's> 

> You got tough and "hard to detect" "suckers"....and>

they live long....> 

> So be ready and take a some "smart" book on

counting> statistics, it may help.

> > Do not worry.> Things could be worse.

> It is very good that you are coming from America.>

You know English already!> 

> 

> Good luck, Body.> > 

> Emil.> > > > 





He wrote: 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



> Subject: facility decommissioning question> > Dear

RADSAFERS:> 

> I was just informed that I need to travel to

England> > next week to look

> at a facility that no longer needs to use>

radioactive materials and

> needs to be decommissioned.  I'm told that the>

facility only ever used

> H-3 and C-14 (rather large amounts by the sound of>

it) in the 

> synthesis of radiolabeled compounds for research.>

Can anyone tell me

> what kind of decommissioning criteria are required>

in England?> > Thank you.

> > Tim Popp











__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 

http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.



------------------------------