[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
radsafe-digest V1 #22
radsafe-digest Saturday, March 31 2001 Volume 01 : Number 022
In this issue:
RE: Commissioner Dicus speaks on the public's perception about Radiat ion Pro...
Equation for MDA
[none]
Re: Smear Collection Efficiency
Re: EPA, risk and dose
Away from office
*long* CD instrument info
Re: Commissioner Dicus speaks on the public's perception about Radiat ion Pro...
Two "Thank You" notes
Re: Commissioner Dicus speaks
Re: Two "Thank You" notes
Re: Commissioner Dicus speaks on the public's perception about Radiat ion Pro...
RE: Smear Collection Efficiency
U.S. nuke regulators prepare for new plant applications
Re: " animal burial "
[Fwd: [OEM] DOE: History of Releases of Recycled U]
An Odd Situation....
An Odd Situation....
[none]
[none]
RE: [Fwd: [OEM] DOE: History of Releases of Recycled U]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:41:39 -0500
From: "Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>
Subject: RE: Commissioner Dicus speaks on the public's perception about Radiat ion Pro...
Friends:
Perception is indeed a problem, but we can't expect people to perceive that
radiation is not something to worry about when we keep telling them that
trivial levels of radiation will kill them.
The problem is NOT that we are unable to get our msg out. We've gotten it
out and it's been bought. Until we change that msg, there is no reason that
the fearful perception should change.
Wait until you see what the worker compensation hearing do to public
perception. I haven't heard anyone (except for the formal letters from RSH
to NRC, DOE, EPA, GAO and congress)argue that these people have not been
injured by radiation. Politicians are falling all over themselves to
support this proposal, and no one is opposing it. I've had senior nuclear
officials say "We can't take on DOE. They've been good to us."
The cart won't go anywhere without the horse.
Ted Rockwell
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:33:04 -0600
From: "Lavera, Ron" <RLavera@ENTERGY.COM>
Subject: Equation for MDA
We have a digital radiation monitoring system installed. A question has
arisen as to what is the most correct method of determining the Minimum
Detectable Activity ( MDA ).
The vendor manual list the MDA = (a * ( B/(2*T) )^0.5 ) * C
a = confidence intervals
T = instrument response time - because this is a digital instrument,
this varies with the detector count rate
T = 10 if B < 100 cpm
T = 1000/B for 100 < B < 100,000 cpm
T = 0.01 * B B > 100,000 cpm
B = Background Count Rate
C = uCi/cc per cpm conversion factor
This appears to be based on the treatment of the system as a Count Rate
Meter ( digital Frisker ! ) and determining the standard deviation as you
would for that type of instrument. This appears to be an Lc value converted
to Activity.
Currie (NUREG/CR-4007) on page 91, appears to indicate a different method of
calculating MDA that is essentially :
MDA = ( ( 2.71 + 3.29 * (Sb)^0.5) * C
Sb = Standard deviation of the background
C = uCi/cc per cpm conversion factor
this assumes that the Background and sample counting times are the same.
The questions are :
1 - What is the correct method for determining the MDA for this type of
instrument.
2 - Which value should be used for setting the "alarm setpoint".
3 - does anyone know of a reference that describes the derivation of the
first equation
Thank you all for your time and consideration.
Ron LaVera
RLaVera@entergy.com
914-736-8433
914-736-8419 FAX
Entergy Nuclear Northeast
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Indian Point 3 NPP
P.O. Box 308
Buchanan, NY 10511
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:00:59 -0500 (EST)
From: wps3@PO.CWRU.EDU (Bill Stephany)
Subject: [none]
Radsafers,
One of our physics professors is looking for sources to pursue his
investigation of "WIMPs", i.e., weakly interacting massive particles. If
you have any of the following you want to get rid of while putting to good
use, please let me know directly. My email is wps3@po.cwru.edu.
1. Co57 flood sources in the 100 microCurie range
2. Any solid form of the following isotopes would be of interest: Co60,
Am241, Co57, Cs137 up to 1.0mCi for each.
3. Cf252 - up to10microCi
Thanks,
Bill
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:26:23 -0800
From: "tom_dixie" <tom_dixie@MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: Smear Collection Efficiency
Randy,
Nice work, now that you have a basis (or perceived basis) for collection
efficiency for activity on smears maybe something will be done with that.
The 'rule of thumb' that you have identified is an unused rule.
For example, if it was used, a smear that collected an activity of say
20,000 dpm would indicate a surface activity of 20,000/.1 or 200,000 dpm
over the area that the smear was rubbed. However, it is recorded as 20,000
dpm over that area (usually 100 square cm).
10% is also what the Navy used when I first qualified as a rad tech.
However, the 'loose surface activity' was never determined using this
factor. It is real and should be used, any idea why it isn't?
There was also some indication (back in the early 70's) that for larger
areas the smear would be less effective in collection and for some surfaces,
like concrete, the smear (paper) would disintegrate. Or in some cases would
become a medium for transfer of activity to clean areas from contaminated.
There are many caveats to the use of this collection efficiency. The smear
must remain whole, the pressure over the smear surface must be uniform, the
surface activity must be reasonably homogenious, etc.
It is obvious that smears do not collect 100% of the activity on a surface
(otherwise the surface would be clean) but the current method of surface
activity determination simply leads people to believe that surfaces are
cleaner than they are.
Tom O'Dou, CHP, RRPT
tom_dixie@msn.com
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Redmond, Randy R. (RXQ) " <RXQ@Y12.doe.gov>
To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Cc: "'William R Horne/HRW/CC01/INEEL/US'" <HRW@INEL.GOV>; "'Scott Davidson'"
<bsdrp@YAHOO.COM>; "'Lavera, Ron'" <RLavera@ENTERGY.COM>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:19 PM
Subject: Smear Collection Efficiency
> Many thanks to those who responded to my inquiry. 10% for the smear
> collection efficiency appears to be the "rule-of-thumb". Found a report
> (RADSAFE Archives) with some actual test data.
>
>
>
http://ww2.packardinst.com/packard/ecom/pcatalog.nsf/ec5d943f415be302852568c
> 2005e6eb3/ff6d3af15d0faeb6852568c30062da4a?OpenDocument - Test Data
>
>
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/lwgate/RAD
>
SAFE/archives/radsafe9501/Subject/article-180.html+%22collection+efficiency%
> 22+and+swipe+OR+smear&hl=en
>
> www.epa.gov/radiation/marssim/docs/revision1/apph.pdf - do a search for
> "collection efficiency"
>
> Randy Redmond
> BWXT Y-12 L.L.C.
> Y-12 National Security Complex
> Radiological Control Organization
> Email: rxq@Y12.doe.gov
> Phone: 865-574-5640
> Fax: 865-574-0117
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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.
>
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:12:02 EST
From: BLHamrick@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: EPA, risk and dose
- --part1_11.11eeb2aa.27f67ad2_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 03/30/2001 6:20:01 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Eric.Frohmberg@state.me.us writes:
> I faxed you a few pages - including a table discussing the differences.
Thank you. I received it, and will look it over, especially the comparison
table.
> I'm unconvinced that EPA really believes that you CAN'T convert dose to risk
> - one CAN and they've done it before. It may have been a poor choice of
>
I think you are right. I think that the Q&A I was looking at was a little
mis-leading. I've re-evaluated what they're saying and they are willing to
convert dose to risk on a pathway/nuclide specific basis. What I think they
are trying to avoid is taking an all pathway TEDE and THEN applying a risk
factor. I still contend that if one accepts the ICRP normalization of dose,
then you should be able to do that, but that appears to be what EPA is
rejecting.
Barbara L. Hamrick
BLHamrick@aol.com
- --part1_11.11eeb2aa.27f67ad2_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 03/30/2001 6:20:01 AM Pacific Standard Time,
<BR>Eric.Frohmberg@state.me.us writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I faxed you a few pages - including a table discussing the differences.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Thank you. I received it, and will look it over, especially the comparison
<BR>table.
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I'm unconvinced that EPA really believes that you CAN'T convert dose to risk
<BR>- one CAN and they've done it before. It may have been a poor choice of
<BR>words on their part.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>I think you are right. I think that the Q&A I was looking at was a little
<BR>mis-leading. I've re-evaluated what they're saying and they are willing to
<BR>convert dose to risk on a pathway/nuclide specific basis. What I think they
<BR>are trying to avoid is taking an all pathway TEDE and THEN applying a risk
<BR>factor. I still contend that if one accepts the ICRP normalization of dose,
<BR>then you should be able to do that, but that appears to be what EPA is
<BR>rejecting.
<BR>
<BR>Barbara L. Hamrick
<BR>BLHamrick@aol.com</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_11.11eeb2aa.27f67ad2_boundary--
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:52:58 -0500
From: "Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>
Subject: Away from office
Friends:
I'll be out of the country from April 2 PM through April 13 late. I'll
check my msgs when I get back.
Thanks.
Ted Rockwell
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:03:16 -0700
From: "Phil Hypes" <laradcon@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: *long* CD instrument info
Here's the Civil Defense instrument information I said I'd post. I
apologize for the length. I clipped out names, phone numbers and email
addresses from the postings. Thanks to everyone who provided information,
and if anyone really can find a source to get these meters for free, please
let me know!
Thanks,
Phil
Los Alamos Radiation Consultants
505.920.9712
laradcon@lanl.gov
*************************************************************************
Texas A&M has quite a few of these that we are refurbishing and giving to
high school teachers. All the ones we have worked with have been GM's. Our
experience is that only about a third of them work as-is. With a little
effort (clean battery contacts, replace GM tube, replace meter, etc.) about
half of them will work. The rest require significant disassembly,
troubleshooting, and repair to get them working, if ever. These are mostly
used for spare parts, especially for the tubes. The success rate also
depends on where you obtain them. Some sources (different state and federal
emergency management agencies mostly) have taken better care of them than
others.
The cable from the box to the probe tends to be the weak link, so as long as
you are careful not to dangle the probe from the cable or pull on it, they
will continue to work fine. The rest of the detector assembly is rather
robust.
We have not attempted to calibrate them since they are intended to be used
only for demonstration and to show relative magnitudes.
I don't think the US government is buying any of them anymore. We have
obtained ours from agencies that are surplusing them because they don't want
to spend the money to store them anymore.
I don't know of a website that provides any information.
*************************************************************************
See the following link and then click on the picture of the meter.
http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/ech/rad/pages/RADINST.HTM
*************************************************************************
There are a full suite of CD meters. The manufacturer was Victoreen for most
of them. These were the CDV-700, CDV-715, etc.
The GM meter has a small windowed GM tube. Efficiency is pretty low. but it
works. Good for demos and for thermo-nuclear warriors. The Ion chambers also
work but their efficiency is also low. Watch out because there are 2 models,
one is a 0-5 R/hr readout and the other is a 0-5 mR/hr readout. Both have
some scale multiplier settings. (What's a factor of a thousand among
friends...) The CD kit usually comes with a few pencil dosimeters and a
charger. They also work, but as with all pencil dosimeters, I've worked
with, if you don't like the reading, just shake it until you get a reading
you like.
I've got an old kit given to me my NE CD for show and tell demos, I can
calibrate it, but I would not use the equipment on any work site where I
wanted to maintain a decent reputation. Kit also had some CD "in case of a
nuclear explosion in your neighborhood..." info overhead slides, a fallout
calculator and a "time until you can leave the shelter" chart, and a
flashlight (green).
CAVEAT, the GM counters have a Cs-check source built into the housing. watch
out for disposal problems.
*************************************************************************
There is a group of recreationally interested persons who have an internet
mailing list, and it's called the CDV700 club... they collect, refurbish,
and play with these types of meters and know lots more than anyone I know.
Getting info from them requires either just snooping on their site or
subscribing and sending in questions...
Hope this helps!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CDV700CLUB/
************************************************************************
The instruments are made by Victoreen. We have a set here in our training
facility. It comes as a set (CDV 777-1 Radiation Detector Set, "serviced
with pride by Wil Smith, Ed Schock, and Dan Bolinski"). The CDV 700 is a GM
tube count rate meter (0 - .5 mr/hr or 0 - 300 cpm, X1, x10, x100). The
CDV 715 is an ion chamber (0 - 5, x1, x10, x100). I can't find any
literature. Our local towns and city fire departments have them. I've
trained on them a long time ago. They're pretty rugged. I'm checking now
on tech manuals for them. www.victoreen.com has phone numbers you can
contact but the instruments don't appear to be in their catalog. Probably
'50s vintage (meaning they were probably built to withstand a nuclear war).
*************************************************************************
The CDV-700 series of radiation survey meters were intended to be used in
the event of a nuclear war. That is something that is only expected to ever
happen once:) Therefore, those instruments were not designed for long term
use. That is, all of the detectors are hard wired, with no BNC connectors.
They were intended to be disposed of after their job was done.
They did have pocket dosimeters, side window GM survey meters and GM pancake
probes. I don't remeber an ion chamber survey meter or an alpha frisker,
but they probably were developed. BTW the State of Ohio has about 10,000 of
them in inventory, that they have been trying to give away, but nobody wants
them.
As far as accuracy goes, they are comparable to other manufacturers
instruments. I believe that they were manufactured by Victoreen under a
federal funded program for civil defense.
*************************************************************************
I've done a little bit of work with these meters. They are relatively simple
construction, quite rugged and use very easy to find D-cell batteries for
power. The downside (based on the ones passed on to me over the last few
years):
1) There seems to be significant degradation in the detector tubes in a
large percentage of these instruments. I'm seeing significant tailing in the
high end rate response for the GM-based instruments.
2) Poor maintenance has led to corrosion of battery contacts of many of
these and, in some cases, corrosion of the circuitry.
3) Low energy response is questionable. The design for ruggedness results in
solid metal detector tubes which makes for a considerable reduction in low
energy detection efficiency. I haven't gotten my hands on any response
curves in a while, so I can't recall where the fall-off starts. Just from
viewing the construction, I would guess in the 60-100 keV range, but that's
a real ballpark guess.
I do keep one in the trunk of my car just in case I come across a rolled
over radiographer's truck, but I wouldn't care to use it for much else. I
might be willing to use them for field radiography measurements for gamma
source radiography, but I would want to make some side-by-side comparisons
with commercial ion chambers first.
I don't like the "contamination" meters that I have seen since the ones I've
had my hands on all use side-window, energy-compensated GMs. These detectors
have lousy response for anything but the most energetic betas. And no alpha
response at all.
FEMA issued CPG 2-2, "Use of Civil Defense Radiological Instruments for
Peacetime Radiological Emergencies" in September 1991. This had dose
response curves for the CD V-700 (which indicates to me that the energy
response curve is too non-linear to be used from most applications) and some
information about drift in the calibration. I would view this as a must-read
for anyone considering using these meters.
*************************************************************************
The basic kit is the CDV-777-1 which consists of:
1 each CDV-700 side-window GM 0-50 mR/hr gamma, 0-30,000 cpm beta+gamma
1 each CDV-715 ion chamber ~50 mR/hr - 500 R/hr.
6 each CDV-742 direct-reading dosimeters 0-200 R
Other equipment issued:
CDV-700M end-window GM, 0 - 30,000 cpm alpha, beta, gamma
CDV-700RP, a retrofitted spatula-handle frisker probe attached to a standard
CDV-700
CDV-717 windowed-ion chamber 0-500 R/hr gamma window closed, beta+gamma open
window
CDV-720 remote ion chamber (25 foot cable) 0-500 R/hr gamma
CDV-718 dual-GM auto-ranging, digital survey meter/electronic dosimeter
with alarm features
CDV-705 speaker for CDV-700, CDV-700M, and CDV-700RP
CDV-138 DRD 0-200 mR
CDV-730 DRD 0-20 R
CDV-740 DRD 0-100 R
*************************************************************************
I have a copy of the DOD publication titled 'Handbook for Radiological
Monitors' that was published in April 1963. The document number is
FG-E-5.9. In the book contains a description of how to operate the CD
V-700 and CD V-715 survey meters. The document also has survey
techniques to use after the big one.
*************************************************************************
I have used the CD meters a few times in training and such for rx response
teams. The quality of the meters is fine, just seems that the response time
is a little slower than your typical meter ( ludlum ). The great thing
about them is you can get them for free from a few places!
*************************************************************************
They are pretty rugged old GMs, from what I recall. Pretty thick window.
*************************************************************************
There are two main models of the CD instruments. The CD V-700 which is
a GM counter and the CD V-715 which is a high range ion chamber. The
REACTS site (www.orau.gov/reacts/gamma.htm) shows the instruments but
doesn't give a lot of detail.
In my opinion, they were a fairly rugged and well designed instruments.
The CD V-700 has a "hotdog" probe GM with a movable beta shield. It
certainly doesn't have the sensitivity of the newer "pancake" probes.
The speaker is a plug-in head phones. One short coming was if you got
in a very high field, the meter would max out and then go to zero giving
a false sense of security, but you could still hear it in the ear phones
if you had them attached.
The CD V-715 is a high range ion chamber and thus not any good for peace
time applications. Most state programs, like the one here in New Jersey
no longer use these instruments because of age and sensitivity, and have
gone over to Ludlum Model 3, 17, etc., for their peace-time nuclear
power emergency response requirements.
While these instruments will eventually become a collectors items, my
experience with them was generally positive.
*************************************************************************
Are you referring to the so-called CDV-715? This is the GM meter with the
tube-shaped probe. I've been distributing these to schools, via the Health
Physics Society. They are quite sensitive. I'm sure they could be used
professionally, after calibration. The civil defense ion chamber (CDV-700)
has a scale that starts at 0-500mR/hr. Not very
practical.
************************************************************************
They're fairly solid - durable. They're a little hard to use, sometimes.
Some medical and small academic programs have been authorized to use them
to meet their radiation survey instrument requirements in obtaining a
radioactive material license. They're free.
************************************************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:16:33 EST
From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Commissioner Dicus speaks on the public's perception about Radiat ion Pro...
- --part1_ca.12f83c66.27f6b421_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Who are "the public" and what are "their own terms?" Actually, I am a member
of the public! There are many things discussed by the news media that I don't
know much about: economics is a good example. If I really want to know, I
try to inform myself -- I don't insist on economics couched in baby-talk and
I certainly don't complain about the use of jargon (and don't tell me
economists don't use jargon).
>From another point of view: how many people know how their automobiles
engines work? Do they clamor at DOT to explain the working of a car engine
in "lay terms?" I could go on and on in this vein, but l will just finish by
saying that we in the scientific community have beaten our breasts and cried
"mea culpa" quite enough and I believe we have gotten sucked into this
attitude by the clamoring of the anti-nukes. No, Sandy, I don't buy it
anymore. DOE has bent over backwards in the past 10-12 years to "explain
things so the 'public' understands" but the yammering never lets up, so I
suspect it.
Re "perception as a cottage industry:" Paul Slovic's first paper on risk
perception was a real breakthrough and I think we all learned something from
it, but the repeated "research" that, for example, asks people what they
associate with terms like "nuclear waste dump" is tiresome and yields nothing
new. Moreover, policy decisions based on perceptions that are divorced from
reality are usually bad decisions, or meaningless decisions. In real life,
when decisions matter, people (even members of the "lay public") make them
rationally, and on the basis of reality and not just unrealistic perception.
People perceive whatever is convenient or comforting for them to perceive. I
recommend to you the editorial by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker magazine
of January 11, 1999. I will only quote one passage: " The difference between
what 'might be' and what 'is' -- which in scientific circles is all the
difference in the world, does not appear to amount to much among the rest of
us..... we want science to conform to a special kind of narrative simplicity:
to begin from obvious premises and proceed, tidily and expeditiously, to a
morally satisfying conclusion." It is this "morally satisfying conclusion"
(e.g., it's the DOE facility 20 miles away that is responsible for my liver
disease, because DOE tells lies and is generally bad) that is too often the
stuff of risk perception.
Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com
Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com
- --part1_ca.12f83c66.27f6b421_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT COLOR="#008000" SIZE=2>Who are "the public" and what are "their own terms?" Actually, I am a member
<BR>of the public! There are many things discussed by the news media that I don't
<BR>know much about: economics is a good example. If I really want to know, I
<BR>try to inform myself -- I don't insist on economics couched in baby-talk and
<BR>I certainly don't complain about the use of jargon (and don't tell me
<BR>economists don't use jargon).
<BR>
<BR>From another point of view: how many people know how their automobiles
<BR>engines work? Do they clamor at DOT to explain the working of a car engine
<BR>in "lay terms?" I could go on and on in this vein, but l will just finish by
<BR>saying that we in the scientific community have beaten our breasts and cried
<BR>"mea culpa" quite enough and I believe we have gotten sucked into this
<BR>attitude by the clamoring of the anti-nukes. No, Sandy, I don't buy it
<BR>anymore. DOE has bent over backwards in the past 10-12 years to "explain
<BR>things so the 'public' understands" but the yammering never lets up, so I
<BR>suspect it.
<BR>
<BR>Re "perception as a cottage industry:" Paul Slovic's first paper on risk
<BR>perception was a real breakthrough and I think we all learned something from
<BR>it, but the repeated "research" that, for example, asks people what they
<BR>associate with terms like "nuclear waste dump" is tiresome and yields nothing
<BR>new. Moreover, policy decisions based on perceptions that are divorced from
<BR>reality are usually bad decisions, or meaningless decisions. In real life,
<BR>when decisions matter, people (even members of the "lay public") make them
<BR>rationally, and on the basis of reality and not just unrealistic perception.
<BR>People perceive whatever is convenient or comforting for them to perceive. I
<BR>recommend to you the editorial by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker magazine
<BR>of January 11, 1999. I will only quote one passage: " The difference between
<BR>what 'might be' and what 'is' -- which in scientific circles is all the
<BR>difference in the world, does not appear to amount to much among the rest of
<BR>us..... we want science to conform to a special kind of narrative simplicity:
<BR>to begin from obvious premises and proceed, tidily and expeditiously, to a
<BR>morally satisfying conclusion." It is this "morally satisfying conclusion"
<BR>(e.g., it's the DOE facility 20 miles away that is responsible for my liver
<BR>disease, because DOE tells lies and is generally bad) that is too often the
<BR>stuff of risk perception.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
<BR>ruthweiner@aol.com
<BR>
<BR>Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
<BR>ruthweiner@aol.com</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_ca.12f83c66.27f6b421_boundary--
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:25:40 EST
From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM
Subject: Two "Thank You" notes
- --part1_db.126068ea.27f6b644_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
1. Many thanks to all those who supported my bid for a DOE appointment. I
didn't get it: apparently Jessie Roberson is to be EM-1. Well, so it goes.
Thank you all again, so much!
2. Thank you Jim Muckerheid for pointing out that the fine green type in my
emails is hard to read. I hope this is better,
Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com
- --part1_db.126068ea.27f6b644_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT COLOR="#000080" SIZE=2><B>1. Many thanks to all those who supported my bid for a DOE appointment. I
<BR>didn't get it: apparently Jessie Roberson is to be EM-1. Well, so it goes.
<BR>Thank you all again, so much!
<BR>
<BR>2. Thank you Jim Muckerheid for pointing out that the fine green type in my
<BR>emails is hard to read. I hope this is better,
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#008000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
<BR>ruthweiner@aol.com</B></FONT></HTML>
- --part1_db.126068ea.27f6b644_boundary--
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:48:18 -0500
From: "Thomas E. Potter" <pottert@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Commissioner Dicus speaks
Commissioner Dicus makes four main points in her speech:
- - Society is willing to accept familiar or freely chosen risks more
readily than those that are imposed upon them.
- - Public risk acceptance usually occurs as a result of an offsetting
public benefit to that risk.
- - Society demands that the mentality of "science must prevail" be
changed to one of "science must make sense."
- - The decision making process succeeds when public involvement is
engaged from the outset and continues to play an integral part
throughout the process.
Commissioner Dicus and the NRC may be relying too heavily on public
involvement to make the regulatory process successful. Public
involvement is clearly important. Public fears need to be considered
thoughtfully in regulatory decision making. But public fears should not
drive regulatory decisions. It would seem that, at least in some
situations, the NRC decision must reduce to choosing between sensitivity
to baseless public fears and intellectual honesty. NRC failure to decide
properly in such a situation would be grossly irresponsible.
NRC also does not seem to appreciate very well that its best attempts at
public involvement can only be partially successful. The population
that stands to gain the benefits from some technological application, a
population typically seeking only some optimized improvement in its
life, is often large, diffuse, and difficult to draw into some public
involvement program. It is left to the technology vendor to make the
case for benefits, and, of course, the value of his view is usually
greatly diminished because his judgment is considered to be tainted by
the prospect of particular benefits that he would gain. On the other
hand, it is never difficult to find some suitable representatives of the
population that would bear the risk under consideration. Consequently,
the public that winds up involved is invariably skewed. Some allowance
for this should be made in consideration of input from public
involvement, but I am not aware of any efforts to do so.
Commissioner Dicus properly notes the importance of the public
developing a sense of the balance between risk associated with a new
technology and the benefit that might offset it. Unfortunately, given
the regulatory framework, regulatory decisions almost always focus on
management of the risks, often in a highly fragmented way, and pretty
much ignore benefits. There is often little opportunity for systematic
examination of benefits and risks of potentially competing technologies
in regulatory decision making. Thus, our regulatory system is skewed
against the introduction of any new technologies that carry identifiable
risks.
The "familiar" risks that seem readily accepted today were all, not so
long ago, unfamiliar. Many, such as electricity, were widely feared.
However, there was very little public involvement in decisions related
to the imposition of these risks. It might be argued that additional
public involvement might have saved us considerable grief by rejecting
technologies that have caused excessive harm. But it is also arguable
that additional public involvement would have prevented adoption of
highly beneficial technologies. Do we think we're better off or worse
off now than we were 100 years ago? (Interesting thought experiments:
(1) How would the NRC-style decision making process work if we were
beginning only now to consider chlorination (never mind fluoridation) of
drinking water? Consider, in particular, the wisdom of placing large
inventories of chorine in the vicinity of thousands of large population
centers. (2) There is noticeable and growing resistance to compulsory
vaccination. Should we reconsider (with intense public involvement, of
course, and suitably limited participation of experts) compulsory
vaccination programs?
We need public involvement in regulatory decision making. However,
public involvement can properly be only a limited adjunct to, not a
replacement for, thoughtful and reasoned consideration by qualified and
responsible (in the broadest sense) representatives of the public.
Tom Potter
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:54:28 EST
From: BLHamrick@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Two "Thank You" notes
- --part1_4f.9962a01.27f6bd04_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 03/30/2001 8:39:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,
RuthWeiner@AOL.COM writes:
> Thank you Jim Muckerheid for pointing out that the fine green type in my
> emails is hard to read. I hope this is better,
>
> Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
> ruthweiner@aol.com
Bold is always better, in e-mail, and in life, IMHO.
Barbara L. Hamrick, completely off-topic
BLHamrick@aol.com
- --part1_4f.9962a01.27f6bd04_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 03/30/2001 8:39:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<BR>RuthWeiner@AOL.COM writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><B>Thank you Jim Muckerheid for pointing out that the fine green type in my
<BR>emails is hard to read. I hope this is better,
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#008000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
<BR>ruthweiner@aol.com</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff0000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B>Bold is always better, in e-mail, and in life, IMHO.
<BR>
<BR>Barbara L. Hamrick, completely off-topic
<BR>BLHamrick@aol.com</B></FONT></HTML>
- --part1_4f.9962a01.27f6bd04_boundary--
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 12:44:36 +0200
From: "J. J. Rozental" <joseroze@NETVISION.NET.IL>
Subject: Re: Commissioner Dicus speaks on the public's perception about Radiat ion Pro...
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Sandy Perle <sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET>
To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Commissioner Dicus speaks on the public's perception about
Radiat ion Pro...
> This Dicus speech is the same old junk about "perception" that we've been
> hearing since assessment of risk perception became a thriving cottage
> industry!
- ----------------------------------
<
So, we keep asking ourselves why we have a problem, why the nuclear
option for all practical reasons is non-existent, and why nobody
believes us?
The answer is clear.
<
Dear Sandy,
Yes it is very clear,
a) Public do not believe in Regulatory Authority, as honest, human,
sensitive, attentive, sincere;
b) Society is not against the uses of radioactive substances in medicine,
industry and research, the society is afraid of possibility of an
radiological or nuclear accident and the waste solution;
d) In his mentality many nuclear professional also with large nuclear
experience, think that is so clear what they are talking about, however,
the fact they can't recognize the public emotion and society's difficulty to
understand;
d) Communication is a job for trained communications experts who work in
direct consultation with technical nuclear professionals. Without this
interaction can be released some kind of information, however never
communication - Communication is an art from brain to brain, even in form of
a written document.
e) How many among this list have had training in Nuclear Communication
Issue? -- How many have had participation in Scenario Accidents? - How many
had even studied the reasons of misperception and lessons learned in the
many radiological accident in the past?
I'll give example in the recent accident in Tokaimura to radsafers analysis
some reasons why public doesn't believe: (The Japanese Mea Culpa)
1 - The Japanese government admitted that it had moved too slowly to respond
to the incident. It did not hold its first emergency meeting until 10 hours
after the incident occurred;
2 - "We lacked a more serious understanding of the situation of the
accident", said Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiromu Nonaka;
3 - Numata blamed the government's slowness to respond, in part on poor
communication between the plant operators and the government -- "There may
have been a series of unfortunate events taking place", he said. "This
particular accident took place in a plant owned by a private enterprise, and
the communication channel between this private plant and the government
facility may not have worked as it should have. But once we learned the
seriousness of this accident, we engaged in a very intensive effort to
prevent the worst from happening" (Sadaaki Numata is a spokesman for the
Japanese Foreign Ministry);
4 - "The situation is one our country has never experienced", a government
spokesperson said;
5 - We lacked a more serious understanding of the situation of the accident"
, said Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiromu Nonaka;
6 - Chief cabinet secretary Hiromu Nonaka called the failures that led to
the accident "unthinkable", and declared that "we must examine how nuclear
facilities are being managed"
Jose Julio Rozental
joseroze@netvision.net.il
Israel
PS. To those that ask the complete paper presented in Goiania, I'll send it
next Tuesday to add some jpg pictures
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 07:50:29 -0600
From: glen.vickers@EXELONCORP.COM
Subject: RE: Smear Collection Efficiency
Group,
I think the point that the 10% smear efficiency value is not really used is
valid. I don't know of anyone in commercial nuclear power that uses a 10%
smear efficiency for personal protection measurements (10CFR20). For
example, all that I've seen in writing says that a GM frisker should be able
to see 1000 dpm on a smear. Using a 100% smear efficiency, this is
approximately 100 cpm above bkg, but if you used a 10% smear efficiency,
you'd be looking for approximately 10 cpm above background. Detecting 10
cpm above background by visually averaging a needle on a meter display
cannot be done accurately and consistently. You would need to use a
"scaler" for all of your smears. How about starting off with 20 dpm on an
alpha smear and following the same train of thought?... In the shipping
world, the LSA/SCO NUREG is quite clear that NRC believes that a 10% smear
efficiency should be used for DOT (49 CFR) measurements. I believe that
most still use 100% efficiency for these measurements still and will have to
find a way to shoehorn themselves within the guidance in the NUREG.
I believe this a reasonably accurate picture of where things stand now. Any
comments or other views on the current state of things?
Glen Vickers
glen.vickers@exeloncorp.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom_dixie [SMTP:tom_dixie@MSN.COM]
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 4:26 PM
> To: Redmond, Randy R. (RXQ) ; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Cc: 'William R Horne/HRW/CC01/INEEL/US'; 'Scott Davidson'; 'Lavera, Ron'
> Subject: Re: Smear Collection Efficiency
>
> Randy,
>
> Nice work, now that you have a basis (or perceived basis) for collection
> efficiency for activity on smears maybe something will be done with that.
> The 'rule of thumb' that you have identified is an unused rule.
>
> For example, if it was used, a smear that collected an activity of say
> 20,000 dpm would indicate a surface activity of 20,000/.1 or 200,000 dpm
> over the area that the smear was rubbed. However, it is recorded as
> 20,000
> dpm over that area (usually 100 square cm).
>
> 10% is also what the Navy used when I first qualified as a rad tech.
> However, the 'loose surface activity' was never determined using this
> factor. It is real and should be used, any idea why it isn't?
>
> There was also some indication (back in the early 70's) that for larger
> areas the smear would be less effective in collection and for some
> surfaces,
> like concrete, the smear (paper) would disintegrate. Or in some cases
> would
> become a medium for transfer of activity to clean areas from contaminated.
>
> There are many caveats to the use of this collection efficiency. The
> smear
> must remain whole, the pressure over the smear surface must be uniform,
> the
> surface activity must be reasonably homogenious, etc.
>
> It is obvious that smears do not collect 100% of the activity on a surface
> (otherwise the surface would be clean) but the current method of surface
> activity determination simply leads people to believe that surfaces are
> cleaner than they are.
>
> Tom O'Dou, CHP, RRPT
> tom_dixie@msn.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Redmond, Randy R. (RXQ) " <RXQ@Y12.doe.gov>
> To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> Cc: "'William R Horne/HRW/CC01/INEEL/US'" <HRW@INEL.GOV>; "'Scott
> Davidson'"
> <bsdrp@YAHOO.COM>; "'Lavera, Ron'" <RLavera@ENTERGY.COM>
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:19 PM
> Subject: Smear Collection Efficiency
>
>
> > Many thanks to those who responded to my inquiry. 10% for the smear
> > collection efficiency appears to be the "rule-of-thumb". Found a report
> > (RADSAFE Archives) with some actual test data.
> >
> >
> >
> http://ww2.packardinst.com/packard/ecom/pcatalog.nsf/ec5d943f415be30285256
> 8c
> > 2005e6eb3/ff6d3af15d0faeb6852568c30062da4a?OpenDocument - Test Data
> >
> >
> http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/lwgate/R
> AD
> >
> SAFE/archives/radsafe9501/Subject/article-180.html+%22collection+efficienc
> y%
> > 22+and+swipe+OR+smear&hl=en
> >
> > www.epa.gov/radiation/marssim/docs/revision1/apph.pdf - do a search for
> > "collection efficiency"
> >
> > Randy Redmond
> > BWXT Y-12 L.L.C.
> > Y-12 National Security Complex
> > Radiological Control Organization
> > Email: rxq@Y12.doe.gov
> > Phone: 865-574-5640
> > Fax: 865-574-0117
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > 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.
> >
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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.
*********************************************************************************
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Exelon Corp. proprietary
information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright
belonging to the Exelon Corp. family of Companies. This E-mail is intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If
you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation
to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please
notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and
any copy of this E-mail and any printout. Thank You.
*********************************************************************************
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 07:30:23 -0800
From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: U.S. nuke regulators prepare for new plant applications
Index:
U.S. nuke regulators prepare for new plant applications
Energy Department Reviews Uranium
Eurotech Announces First EKOR Contracts in the Nuclear Waste Industry
Britain's Trident nuclear subs are legal - court
Kobe waives non-nuclear port-call condition for Italian ship
Nuclear leaders to meet in SF
======================================
U.S. nuke regulators prepare for new plant applications
WASHINGTON, March 30 (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission on Friday said it is forming a "future licensing project
organization" to prepare and manage possible applications to permit
construction of new nuclear reactors.
"Several utilities and organizations have contacted the NRC to initiate
discussions associated with possible construction of a new nuclear plants
in the United States," the NRC said.
"These include Exelon's <EXC.N> request for a pre-application review of a
Pebble Bed Modular Reactor and Exelon's stated intentions to submit an
application to build the Pebble Bed Reactor."
No commercial nuclear power plant has been built in the United States in
25 years. Though nuclear supplies around 20 percent of the nation's
electricity needs, it is only now, with a new Republican White House and
an emerging energy crisis that the industry has seriously explored building
new plants.
The NRC said it intends to staff the new organization in phases with the
objective of having a fully functional office by the end of September.
- ----------------
Energy Department Reviews Uranium
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Energy Department says it could take two more
years to determine how much recycled uranium - which contains traces of
plutonium and other radioactive materials - passed through its nuclear
facilities.
The agency released a preliminary review Thursday analyzing the flow of
recycled uranium throughout the DOE sites between 1952 and 1999. The
agency was unable to complete a final analysis due to ``significant
inconsistency and inherent uncertainty'' in the data it gathered from 12
facilities at nine sites.
The investigation began in 1999, prompted by concerns that workers were
unknowingly exposed to high levels of radiation at uranium enrichment
plants in Paducah, Ky.; Piketon, Ohio; and Oak Ridge, Tenn.
The Energy Department used uranium in nuclear weapons and as fuel for
reactors. The agency began recycling it in the early 1950s to reduce U.S.
dependence on foreign uranium. The report said most Energy Department
facilities stopped using recycled uranium in the late 1960s.
Recycled uranium is more harmful than mined uranium because it has been
processed in a reactor, where it becomes contaminated with plutonium and
neptunium.
Pete Dessaules, a team leader in DOE's Office of Plutonium, Uranium and
Special Materials Inventory, said an overall assessment of the 12 facilities
will help determine exactly how much recycled uranium was used over the
years and how much may still be stored around the country.
However, the task is proving more difficult than expected, Dessaules said.
``The biggest challenge in completing the report is standardizing the
definitions that were used in the site reports for recycled uranium,'' he said.
``That may involve looking at millions of records.''
According to DOE, recycled uranium was present at the following locations:
Hanford, Wash.; Savannah River, S.C.; Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Lab, Idaho; Fernald, Ohio; West Valley, N.Y.; Weldon
Springs, Mo.; RMI Inc., Ohio; the gaseous diffusion plants in Paducah,
Piketon and Oak Ridge; the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge; and Rocky Flats,
Colo.
- -----------------
Eurotech Announces First EKOR Contracts in the Nuclear Waste Industry
FAIRFAX, Va., March 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Eurotech Ltd., (Amex: EUO)
announced today that they have reached a significant corporate milestone,
securing the first two contracts for its leading product, the radiation-
resistant EKOR family of silicone geocomposites. The sales are the result
of recent marketing including industry presentations and demonstrations,
which highlight the broad spectrum of applications for EKOR products. The
customer's objective in the first contract is to evaluate the performance of
EKOR Matrix, mixed with low-level radioactive waste to create a waste form
suitable for disposal. The second contract is for EKOR Sealer where the
customer's objective is to evaluate EKOR's performance in preventing the
migration of radioactive contaminants on equipment used in the production
of radioactive materials.
The Company's penetration into the nuclear waste management market
with the EKOR line of products will be established in stages through a
series of scaled applications, ranging from proof of principle demonstrations
to small projects and then larger projects as each application is proven in
the field. The Company's strategy is to build long-term market penetration
and credibility through product performance and successful application.
EKOR is a unique family of ultra long life products that provide significant
performance benefits such as extreme resistance to radiation damage,
resistance to a broad range of chemical environments and outstanding
barrier properties that were previously not available. The EKOR family of
products addresses a broad spectrum of applications where its multiple
forms can be used as sealers, coatings, and waste encapsulation
matrices, or foamed into cavities to control airborne contamination. Current
forms of the product family include EKOR Sealer, EKOR Coating, EKOR
Grout, EKOR Matrix and EKOR Foam.
"While the initial EKOR sales will demonstrate proof of principle and have
modest dollar values, these early sales are important milestones, as they
represent necessary steps to full deployment of EKOR at Department of
Energy sites," stated Don Hahnfeldt, Eurotech's CEO and President.
Hahnfeldt went on to say, "More importantly, our recent activity over the
last month including the variety of EKOR product presentations made to
key waste management contractors, represents the groundwork for future
growth and sales. Examples include field presentations of EKOR Matrix
and EKOR Sealer at multiple sites. EKOR is following required industry
protocol to prove the product and application effectiveness."
"Once we have a few on-site applications, we can build on that momentum
and success. We expect several more contracts to follow shortly," said
Paul Childress, General Manager, Nuclear Environmental Division.
EUROTECH, Ltd. (Amex: EUO) works with scientists and research
institutes in Russia, Israel and other countries to develop and
commercialize innovative technologies that have widespread or critical
application. For photographs of EKOR applications inside Chernobyl's
sarcophagus and additional information about Eurotech and its
technologies visit http://www.eurotechltd.com.
- ----------------
Britain's Trident nuclear subs are legal - court
LONDON, March 30 (Reuters) - A Scottish court ruled on Friday that
Britain's Trident nuclear submarines were legal under international law,
despite claims to the contrary by an anti-nuclear campaign group.
The court overturned an earlier ruling that three women who damaged a
Trident nuclear installation two years ago had acted lawfully because
nuclear weapons were illegal in the eyes of the International Court of
Justice in The Hague.
The three protesters were members of the Trident Ploughshares group
which argues that the nuclear weapons aboard Britain's four Trident
submarines are illegal because they cannot distinguish between military
and civilian targets.
Since the darkest days of the Cold War there has always been one Trident
submarine on patrol at sea, its missiles at the ready.
"Until Trident is taken off alert, we have a direct action campaign to
continue. Today'sjudgement will actually strenghten campaigners in their
resolve," David Mackenzie, a spokesman for the campaign group told
Reuters.
"The government is doing nothing about this crime, the courts today have
said they're not prepared to do anything in Scotland, so it's back to us to
get on with the job," he said.
- ---------------
Kobe waives non-nuclear port-call condition for Italian ship
KOBE, March 31 (Kyodo) - The city of Kobe has decided not to ask an
Italian navy ship to submit a document stating it does not possess nuclear
weapons or materials as required under a city ordinance when it makes a
port call Monday, city officials said Saturday.
The 52.9-ton Orsa Maggiore is an unarmed training vessel and therefore not
subject to non-nuclear port-call regulations, the officials said, adding that
the waiver does not mean the city has abandoned the requirement.
The Orsa Maggiore is expected to stay at the port until April 10 for refueling
and allowing its crew to rest. The ship had taken part in various events in
Tokyo and other cities.
The western Japan port city has refused to allow foreign ships to make port
calls unless they submit a document proving they are not carrying nuclear
weapons and materials.
- ---------------
Nuclear leaders to meet in SF
SAN FRANCISCO, (CBS.MW) -- As California's energy crisis deepens with
no foreseeable solution in sight, nuclear energy advocates are set to bring
their suggestions to the Golden State.
Next week, The Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based policy
organization, will hold its annual three-day forum to discuss the economic
potential, business risks and environmental implications of nuclear power.
Although it provides about 20 percent of U.S. electricity, nuclear energy is
largely considered anathema in the United States, and especially in
politically correct San Francisco.
But with rolling blackouts hitting California and little hope the state will
resolve its energy shortage anytime soon, proponents of nuclear power are
at least hopeful of consideration.
Vice President Dick Chaney, who is leading development of the Bush
administration's energy policy, has said that nuclear energy deserves
serious consideration as part of the solution to the nation's developing
energy shortage.
Among other reasons, the vice president has supported nuclear energy as
one possible way to lower carbon dioxide emissions. Earlier this week,
President Bush retreated from the Kyoto Protocol, an international
agreement to limit carbon dioxide and other gasses believed to contribute
to global warming, because it did not hold emerging nations to similar
standards.
Nuclear plants don't emit carbon dioxide, while coal generation, which still
accounts for about 50 percent of U.S. electrical consumption, generates
large amounts of the gas.
Environmentalists find fault with the logic of using nuclear energy to reduce
gas emissions. The potential biological impacts and public safety concerns
surrounding nuclear energy remain tremendous, with long-term effects of
radiation and waste storage still unpredictable and not fully understood,
they argue.
"From the global warning problem, its probably a net plus," says Rich
Ferguson, director of research for the Sacramento-based Center for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Technologies. "But my general reaction is, when
the politicians are proposing to put one of these plants in their own
hometown, I'll take them seriously."
The political challenges surrounding nuclear power were demonstrated
again this week in Europe where Green party protestors in Germany sought
to delay a shipment of nuclear waste to a processing plant by blocking a
train carrying the material.
And the memories of the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown in Pennsylvania
and the Soviet Union's Chernobyl disaster, have served to deter much
consideration of nuclear power development, at least in the United States.
Currently, there are two operating power plants in California. PG&E ({HYPERLINK "/tools/quotes/intChart.asp?siteid=aolpf&symb=PCG"}PCG)
owns the Diablo Canyon Power Plant near San Luis Obispo. Southern
California Edison ({HYPERLINK "/tools/quotes/intChart.asp?siteid=aolpf&symb=EIX"}EIX) and San Diego Gas & Electric ({HYPERLINK "/tools/quotes/intChart.asp?siteid=aolpf&symb=SRE"}SRE) own the San
Onofre plant roughly midway between San Diego and Los Angeles.
Combined, nuclear energy produces 14 percent of the state's electricity
needs.
In the U.S., 103 nuclear reactors operate in 31 states, generating about 20
percent of the country's energy needs. Since 1975, no permits to build
nuclear plants have been issued in the U.S.
**************************************************************************
Sandy Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100
Director, Technical Extension 2306
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Service Fax:(714) 668-3149
ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Personal Website: http://sandyfl.nukeworker.net
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:01:21 +0200
From: "Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>
Subject: Re: " animal burial "
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C0B94B.CEE9F9E0
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by
dymwsm09.mailwatch.com id f2UJjBX23549
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
- -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Otto G. Raabe <ograabe@ucdavis.edu>
An: Neil, David M <neildm@ID.DOE.GOV>; 'Franz Schoenhofer'
<franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>; 'MacLellan, Jay A' <jay.a.maclellan@PNL.GO=
V>;
radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Datum: Freitag, 30. M=E4rz 2001 00:04
Betreff: RE: " animal burial "
>March 29, 2001
>Davis, CA
>
>Most people eating beef don't want the protein denatured.
??????????
As soon as you cook, fry, bake, dry meat, the proteins will denature - wh=
ich
means that the structure of the proteins will be changed by unfolding,
making them more vulnerable to various enzymes which digest them. The
problem with the prions are that they need much harsher conditions to
denature than conventional cooking, frying etc.
I cannot believe and it is in sharp contrast to my personal experience, t=
hat
most people eat their beef raw...........
Franz
- ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C0B94B.CEE9F9E0
Content-Type: text/x-vcard;
charset=us-ascii;
name="Franz Schoenhofer.vcf"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="Franz Schoenhofer.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Schoenhofer;Franz
FN:Franz Schoenhofer
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:franz.schoenhofer@bmu.gv.at
REV:20010330T170120Z
END:VCARD
- ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C0B94B.CEE9F9E0--
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 09:56:57 -0800
From: Chuck Cooper <ccc@pp.pdx.edu>
Subject: [Fwd: [OEM] DOE: History of Releases of Recycled U]
Gary Greenberg wrote:
> http://tis.eh.doe.gov/legacy/releases/pr01045.html
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> March 29, 2001
>
> NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:
> Dolline Hatchett, 202/586-5806
> Joe Davis, 202/586-4940
>
> Energy Department Releases Historical Studies of Recycled Uranium
>
> Differing Operational Practices Result in Data Inconsistencies Among
> Studies
>
> The Department of Energy (DOE) today released nine site-specific studies
> that examined the historical movement of recycled uranium throughout the
> Department's complex. The studies represent the fifth installment of a
> comprehensive effort begun by the department in September 1999 to
> address worker concerns associated with the historical use of recycled
> uranium at the Gaseous Diffusion Plants in Paducah, Kentucky,
> Portsmouth, Ohio, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
>
> The nine reports cover the following 12 sites: Hanford, Wash.; Savannah
> River, S.C.; Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory,
> Idaho; Fernald, Ohio; (including West Valley, N.Y.; Weldon Springs, Mo.;
> and RMI Inc. Ohio); the Gaseous Diffusion Plants in Paducah, Ky.;
> Portsmouth, Ohio; Oak Ridge, Tenn.; the Y-12 Plant, Tenn.; and Rocky
> Flats, Colo.
>
> The reports, as well as a project overview that describes the approach
> used to prepare the reports, are available on the web at
> http://tis.eh.doe.gov/legacy/. The reports provide a general
> understanding of the flow and characteristics of recycled uranium at
> individual sites. They identify where recycled uranium and trace amounts
> of other radioactive contaminants could have concentrated or been
> released, including historical periods, activities and concentrations,
> which may be useful for identifying potential worker exposure.
>
> Thousands of historical records were retrieved and analyzed to compile
> the data used in these studies. Based on this information, DOE has a
> good preliminary understanding of the characteristics and trace
> contaminants in the major streams of recycled uranium.
>
> However, because of differing operational practices, different
> designations for recycled uranium used by the sites in historical
> records dating back to 1952, and the extensive blending operations used
> by the sites, there are data inconsistencies among the reports. Because
> of these inconsistencies, the numeric totals of the sites cannot be
> calculated to yield an accurate accounting of the amount of recycled
> uranium across the DOE complex.
>
> To resolve these inconsistencies, and build on historical records, the
> Department's Office of Plutonium, Uranium, and Special Materials
> Inventory has been charged with conducting a follow-on study to develop
> a historical mass balance for uranium -- including recycled uranium. The
> nine recycled uranium reports will be used in the study.
>
> A brief press conference call will be held today at 3 p.m. for
> interested media who would like more specific information on the
> recycled uranium project. Please call (202) 586-5806 to receive the
> call-in number and to confirm your participation by noon today.
> - DOE -
>
> R-01-045
>
> --
> Gary N. Greenberg, MD MPH Sysop / Moderator Occ-Env-Med-L MailList
> gary.greenberg@duke.edu Duke Occupat, Environ, Int & Fam Medicine
> OEM-L Maillist Website: http://occhealthnews.com
> _______________________________________________
> Occ-Env-Med-L mailing list
> Occ-Env-Med-L@mc.duke.edu
>
> http://mailman.mc.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/occ-env-med-l
> -
> To manage your subscription (on, off, digest): http://subscribe.occhealthnews.net
> -
> Today's Sponsor (not responsible for content):
> http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/environment/index.shtml
> Kodak Health Safety & Environment Program
> Our Commitment To make measurable improvements in the health, safety and environmental aspects of our products, services, and operations...every day...every month...every year.
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 13:45:21 -0500
From: prof@HI-TECH2000.COM
Subject: An Odd Situation....
Hello Dear Physicists,
I wonder if someone could help.
I am a long standing (Ph.D. with over 14 years of research experience in
various national and international laboratories and universities- faculty,
etc) experimental high-energy/nuclear/radiation/medical physicist .
I find myself out of a job for a peculiarly extended period even after
having unsuccessfully tried all (?) manner of on-line (Monster and other
relevant and general boards) and off-line (relevant publications, etc)
employment sources , and direct applications to potential employers, even
with the willingness to relocate almost anywhere (am currently in the US
midwest).
Does any one know of any headhunters or agencies which would work
one-on-one liaising between employers and candidates ?
I do find it somewhat strange that with so many relevant positions
advertised (and some vacancies not advertised!), an employer would balk at
14 years of experience in advanced research!!
Can anyone offer any explanation, although I can guess at one or two?
Any suggestions and assistance would be appreciated and, if preferred,
maybe forwarded to me directly to prof@hi-tech2000.com.
Best Regards,
Amir
Amir H. Sanjari (Dr)
Member: ANS, AAPM
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 13:54:32 -0500
From: info@HI-TECH2000.COM
Subject: An Odd Situation....
Hello Dear Physicists,
I wonder if someone could help.
I am a long standing (Ph.D. with over 14 years of research experience in
various national and international laboratories and universities- faculty,
etc) experimental high-energy/nuclear/radiation/medical physicist .
I find myself out of a job for a peculiarly extended period even after
having unsuccessfully tried all (?) manner of on-line (Monster and other
relevant and general boards) and off-line (relevant publications, etc)
employment sources , and direct applications to potential employers, even
with the willingness to relocate almost anywhere (am currently in the US
midwest).
Does any one know of any headhunters or agencies which would work
one-on-one liaising between employers and candidates ?
I do find it somewhat strange that with so many relevant positions
advertised (and some vacancies not advertised!), an employer would balk at
14 years of experience in advanced research!!
Can anyone offer any explanation, although I can guess at one or two?
Any suggestions and assistance would be appreciated and, if preferred,
maybe forwarded to me directly to info@hi-tech2000.com.
Best Regards,
Amir
Amir H. Sanjari (Dr)
Member: ANS, AAPM
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:58:34 -0500
From: prof@HI-TECH2000.COM
Subject: [none]
SET RADSAFE MAIL ACK
Amir H. Sanjari (Dr)
Member: ANS, AAPM
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:59:45 -0500
From: prof@HI-TECH2000.COM
Subject: [none]
REVIEW RADSAFE
Amir H. Sanjari (Dr)
Member: ANS, AAPM
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 15:57:40 -0500
From: "Stokes, James" <StokesJ@TTNUS.COM>
Subject: RE: [Fwd: [OEM] DOE: History of Releases of Recycled U]
I once worked at one of these DOE facilities. I do not know how the study
is being conducted. However, if they sre not considering certain factors,
the study will be flawed.
Furnaces were used both for the recycling of combustible products that had
economically recoverable levels of uranium in them (eg: baghouse filter
bags, and for the incineration of solid waste with "low levels" of
radioactive contamination. Since the exhausts used scrubbers, Sample filter
media were not used on the monitoring stacks. The release rates were
"estimated" using method 5 stack testing. The estimated release rates,
assumed that the scrubbers were mechanically maintained. There were not.
Another factor is that by procedure, stack filters were changed at
frequncies that gave laboratory results that were too close to the detection
limit. Therefore not satisfying the 95% confidence factor.
Then the laboratory results were "rounded off" to the 0.1 KG. Therefore,
any release below 0.05 KG per filter change was called "0". With so many
stack filters changed on a shiftly basis for thirty eight years, that is a
significant error term.
I would hope that these factors, and others that I may not be aware of, are
considered. To not consider them, could result in one of two problems. One
would be that the total amount released is less than actual. The other is
that, any adverse health effects to the public seen in epidemiologic
studies, would result in overestimated risk, since the health effects were a
result of releases that were actually larger than reported.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Cooper
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Sent: 3/31/01 12:56 PM
Subject: [Fwd: [OEM] DOE: History of Releases of Recycled U]
Gary Greenberg wrote:
> http://tis.eh.doe.gov/legacy/releases/pr01045.html
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> March 29, 2001
>
> NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:
> Dolline Hatchett, 202/586-5806
> Joe Davis, 202/586-4940
>
> Energy Department Releases Historical Studies of Recycled Uranium
>
> Differing Operational Practices Result in Data Inconsistencies Among
> Studies
>
> The Department of Energy (DOE) today released nine site-specific
studies
> that examined the historical movement of recycled uranium throughout
the
> Department's complex. The studies represent the fifth installment of a
> comprehensive effort begun by the department in September 1999 to
> address worker concerns associated with the historical use of recycled
> uranium at the Gaseous Diffusion Plants in Paducah, Kentucky,
> Portsmouth, Ohio, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
>
> The nine reports cover the following 12 sites: Hanford, Wash.;
Savannah
> River, S.C.; Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory,
> Idaho; Fernald, Ohio; (including West Valley, N.Y.; Weldon Springs,
Mo.;
> and RMI Inc. Ohio); the Gaseous Diffusion Plants in Paducah, Ky.;
> Portsmouth, Ohio; Oak Ridge, Tenn.; the Y-12 Plant, Tenn.; and Rocky
> Flats, Colo.
>
> The reports, as well as a project overview that describes the approach
> used to prepare the reports, are available on the web at
> http://tis.eh.doe.gov/legacy/. The reports provide a general
> understanding of the flow and characteristics of recycled uranium at
> individual sites. They identify where recycled uranium and trace
amounts
> of other radioactive contaminants could have concentrated or been
> released, including historical periods, activities and concentrations,
> which may be useful for identifying potential worker exposure.
>
> Thousands of historical records were retrieved and analyzed to compile
> the data used in these studies. Based on this information, DOE has a
> good preliminary understanding of the characteristics and trace
> contaminants in the major streams of recycled uranium.
>
> However, because of differing operational practices, different
> designations for recycled uranium used by the sites in historical
> records dating back to 1952, and the extensive blending operations
used
> by the sites, there are data inconsistencies among the reports.
Because
> of these inconsistencies, the numeric totals of the sites cannot be
> calculated to yield an accurate accounting of the amount of recycled
> uranium across the DOE complex.
>
> To resolve these inconsistencies, and build on historical records, the
> Department's Office of Plutonium, Uranium, and Special Materials
> Inventory has been charged with conducting a follow-on study to
develop
> a historical mass balance for uranium -- including recycled uranium.
The
> nine recycled uranium reports will be used in the study.
>
> A brief press conference call will be held today at 3 p.m. for
> interested media who would like more specific information on the
> recycled uranium project. Please call (202) 586-5806 to receive the
> call-in number and to confirm your participation by noon today.
> - DOE -
>
> R-01-045
>
> --
> Gary N. Greenberg, MD MPH Sysop / Moderator Occ-Env-Med-L MailList
> gary.greenberg@duke.edu Duke Occupat, Environ, Int & Fam Medicine
> OEM-L Maillist Website: http://occhealthnews.com
> _______________________________________________
> Occ-Env-Med-L mailing list
> Occ-Env-Med-L@mc.duke.edu
>
> http://mailman.mc.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/occ-env-med-l
> -
> To manage your subscription (on, off, digest):
http://subscribe.occhealthnews.net
> -
> Today's Sponsor (not responsible for content):
> http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/environment/index.shtml
> Kodak Health Safety & Environment Program
> Our Commitment To make measurable improvements in the health, safety
and environmental aspects of our products, services, and
operations...every day...every month...every year.
************************************************************************
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.
************************************************************************
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.
------------------------------
End of radsafe-digest V1 #22
****************************
***********************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe digest mailing list. To
unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text
"unsubscribe radsafe-digest" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
with no subject line.