[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
radsafe-digest V1 #251
radsafe-digest Thursday, December 6 2001 Volume 01 : Number 251
In this issue:
Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
Wisdom Re Norm
Article: Technology of 'Dirty Bomb' Simple, but Not the Execution
Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
RE: Nukes in Space...
RE: Wisdom Re Norm
Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
Victoreen 440R/F
RE: Nukes in Space...
Re: December 5th Safety at Nuclear Plants
Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
RE: Nukes in Space...
RE: Article: Technology of 'Dirty Bomb' Simple, but Not the Execu tion
Re: Nukes in Space...
Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
RE: Nukes in Space...
Spin-off group
Testing Radiological Filters
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 07:30:50 -0500
From: "dkosloff1" <dkosloff1@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
The New Scientist article points out that the new information does not
indicate any significant changes in the assumed risks of alpha radiation.
The findings are neutral, as the quotes of the scientists indicated. In
fact they may have found clues to how radiation improves health. What is
striking is the negative bias injected by the New Scientist writer. Please
see comments below.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Cohen" <ncohen12@HOME.COM>
To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 7:52 PM
Subject: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
SNIP
>"The effects of radiation are very complex," concludes Hongning Zhou of
Columbia
>University in New York, a member of the team. "We should reconsider the
risks of low >levels."
That is ongoing and should include recognizing that there is no risk or
benefit depending on dose.
>Current estimates of the risks of radiation come mainly from studies of
>cancer rates in survivors of the 1945 atomic bomb blasts in Hiroshima and
>Nagasaki, where the levels of radiation were very high.
That is certainly something that should be changed.
>Scientists work out the risks of less intense radiation assuming that the
cell damage
>falls off in direct proportion to the radiation dose. But that might not
be true. Over the
>past few years, experiments have shown that the effects of radiation in
cells are
>unexpectedly complicated due to a so-called "bystander effect", in which a
radiated
>cell can alter the protein production of neighbouring cells.
We already know the LNT is wrong at low doses, this effect may be part of
the reason that radiation improves health.
>Until there are detailed studies of low-level radiation on animal and human
>tissues, no one will know if this is cause for alarm.
Or if this is a cause for joy because it may demonstrate why radiation is
beneficial and at exactly what doses.
Don Kosloff dkosloff1@msn.com
2910 Main Street, Perry Oh 44081
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 08:15:06 -0500
From: "Estabrooks, Bates (IHK) " <IHK@Y12.doe.gov>
Subject: Wisdom Re Norm
As soon as I saw Steve Frantz' posting which simply said: "Proverbs 26:4" a
grin spread across my face. But, as I recently discussed with my kids, that
verse is followed by 26:5 which offers seeming contradictory counsel. It
takes wisdom, and a knowledge of the "recipient" (the proverb uses another
term), to know whether a response will have benefit or not.
Thanks, Steve, for the reminder.
Bates Estabrooks
Facility Safety-EUO Restart
BWXT Y-12
9983-FS
P.O. Box 2009
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
865-574-7376
865-241-5780 (Facsimile)
ihk@y12.doe.gov <mailto:ihk@y12.doe.gov>
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 09:58:29 -0500
From: "jenday1" <jenday1@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Subject: Article: Technology of 'Dirty Bomb' Simple, but Not the Execution
This appeared in today's Washington Post.
- -- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024
jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
Technology of 'Dirty Bomb' Simple, but Not the Execution
By Guy Gugliotta
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 5, 2001; Page A12
Finding enough radioactive material to make a "dirty bomb" might be
relatively easy, experts say, but the effects of such a weapon could never
remotely approach those of a nuclear explosion.
"The nuclear device is a weapon of mass destruction," said nuclear scientist
Siegfried Hecker, former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
"Dirty bombs are weapons of mass disruption, in terms of frightening people,
the cleanup and the potential economic consequences."
Interest in dirty bombs has deepened recently among U.S. intelligence
officials because of mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda
network may be developing expertise in building them.
But Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said yesterday that U.S.
authorities had no information that bin Laden had made such a weapon. Ridge
added that the Bush administration's latest anti-terrorist alert had nothing
to do with the threat of a dirty bomb. Sources have told The Washington Post
that concerns about al Qaeda's nuclear capabilities had played a role in the
alert.
The technology to make the bomb is relatively simple: Find some radioactive
material, wrap it around a core of ordinary high explosive and detonate it
so that contamination spreads over the widest possible area.
This is not a nuclear explosion. That occurs when two subcritical masses of
highly processed radioactive material are thrust suddenly together,
triggering a violent chain reaction and release of energy.
Blast effects and heat from a nuclear device can flatten city blocks and
kill thousands of people; the only blast from a dirty bomb is provided by
the explosive.
Still, while fatalities may be light, a dirty bomb can cause a higher
incidence of cancer in local residents even decades after the attack, and
more immediately, provokes the same psychology of fear as a chemical or
bioweapons threat. In that respect, Hecker said, a dirty bomb "would have an
instant terrorist effect."
But the bomb-maker must always contend with a Catch-22, for the more
powerful the radiation source, the more dangerous it is to handle. The
weaker the source, the less damage the weapon will cause.
"The dirtiest spent fuel is from a nuclear reactor," said Lisbeth Gronlund,
senior staff scientist of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It is very
radioactive, and one reason to consider it proliferation-resistant is that
the dose you get from stealing it would kill you pretty quickly."
Even if the thief is prepared to die, making bombs from "hot" radioactive
material and getting them to the target present dangers. "How do you figure
out how much you need?" asked Tom Cochrane, nuclear program director for the
Natural Resources Defense Council. "And how do you transport it?"
The alternative is to pick a weaker radiation source. That means using
plutonium or enriched uranium, which give off "alpha" particles that cannot
penetrate the human body from outside, unlike the "gamma" particles or
neutron radiation common in spent fuel waste or cobalt-60.
If the terrorist chooses alpha, then the plutonium must be milled fine, like
anthrax spores, because the only way it can hurt humans is through
inhalation, Cochrane said. This adds another requirement for technical
expertise. But as long as the maker can deal with the radioactivity,
detonating the device is as easy as triggering a bomb in a car or arming it
from the air.
Damage could be problematic, experts say. In October, the nonprofit National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements estimated that
contamination would spread over "only a small area of a few city blocks."
The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War argued that a
plutonium dirty bomb would have almost no immediate health consequences, and
even though it could lead to cancer years after the attack, the effects
"would probably not be dramatic."
Still, the terrorist group that used a dirty bomb would garner immense
prestige among its peers, said British political scientist Gavin Cameron in
a paper prepared last month for the International Atomic Energy Association,
and "the mere fact of being nuclear would almost certainly ensure that it
had a considerable impact on the public's imagination and fear."
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:17:36 -0500
From: "Philippe Duport" <pduport@uottawa.ca>
Subject: Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
Re Norm Cohen on PNAS (paper full ref : Zhou et al. Radiation risk to low
fluencies of alpha particles may be greater than we thought, PNAS
98(14410-14415, Dec 4 2001)
Otto Raabe is right. There is no indication of supra-linearity at low
dose - or dose rates of alpha radiation. Otto mentioned the radium dial
painters. There are also thresholds at about 2 Gy (40,000 mSv) in Thorotrats
patients (Andersson, M.; Storm, H.H. Cancer incidence among Danish
Thorotrast-exposed patients, Journal of the National Cancer Institute,
84:1318-1325, 1992.). There are thresholds at about 0.8 Gy (1,600 mSv) for
lung cancer in workers exposed to plutonium at the Mayak (Urals) plant
(Tokarskaya Z. et al. Multifactorial analysis of lung cancer dose-response
relationship for workers at the Mayak Nuclear Enterprise, Health Physics
Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 899-905, 1997).
Jim Nelson reminds us of BEIR VI and of the Iowa study; Otto of Bernie
Cohen's work. Radon epidemiology would be more instructive if real
uncertainties in exposures (and, if low radiation dose to the lung is the
cause of cancer, all non-radon lung doses - and associated errors - received
by uranium miners) were taken into account in determining comprehensive
error bars. Bernie Cohen's work has been criticized but I may have missed a
numerical refutation of his conclusions (how big should have been the
confounders and what correlation should there be between them to account for
the discrepancy with LNT predictions?).
Otto's on work shows that latency time increases with decreasing dose rate
and exceeds the lifespan of animals when it is low enough (practical
thresholds) See Raabe O.G. Three-dimensional model of risk from internally
deposited radionuclides, In: Raabe O.G. ed., Internal radiation dosimetry.
Medical Physics publishing, pp. 633-655, 1984).
Sanders (Sanders, C.L.; McDonald, K.E.; Mahafey, J.A. Lung tumor response
to inhaled Pu and its implications for radiation protection. Health Physics
Vol. 55, pp.455-462, 1988) showed thresholds at about 1 Gy for lung cancer
in rats after inhalation of PuO2.
Morlier et al. Morlier, J.P.; Morin, M.; Chameaud, J.; Masse, R.; Bottard,
S.; Lafuma J. Importance du rôle du débit de dose sur l'apparition des
cancers chez le rat après inhalation de radon. C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, t.
315, Série III, 463-466, 1992) show that a low dose (about a lifetime indoor
exposure) of radon progeny delivered at a high dose rate induces lung
cancer. The same low dose given at low dose rate seems to decrease the risk
below that in controls.
Ron Mitchel et al. (R.E.J. Mitchel, B. Heinmiller, and J. S. Jackson,
Inhaled Uranium Ore Dust and Lung Cancer Risk in Rats, Health Physics, 76,
145-155 (1999) show that the risk of lung cancer in rats after inhalation of
very high grade (40% U) uranium ore dust is proportional to dose rate rather
than dose. Median survival time was higher in the lowest exposure group than
in the control group.
All the above (other examples can be found) contradict the affirmation that,
mutation rates observed at low fluences of alpha radiation (I quote Zhou et
al.) "...suggest(s) that the assumption of direct proportionality in
radiation risk assessment is seriously in error".
In vitro mutations as well as bystander effects are real but the acid test
for their extraploation to whole organisms is provided by experimental and
clinical observations in real people or animals, when confounders can be
measured or estimated with enough confidence and when normal cell and tissue
controle mechanisms are allowed to play their role. To date, the data seem
to indicate that there is no supra-linearity for cancer risk at low doses
(and dose rates) of alpha radiation. Examples of supra-linearity of alpha
radiation risk (in animal or people), with error bars that take all sources
of error into account are welcome.
Sorry for giving so many details!
Philippe Duport
International Centre for Low Dose Radiation Research
University of Ottawa
555 King Edward Ave.
Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1N 6N5
Tel: (613) 562 5800, ext. 1270
pduport@uottawa.ca
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU>
To: "Norman Cohen" <ncohen12@HOME.COM>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
> December 4, 2001
> Davis, CA
>
> Don't waste your time reading this New Scientist Article.
>
> The fact that high LET alpha radiation can produce unique multiple
> double-strand DNA lesions and the existence of bystander effects do not
> imply anything about elevated risk. Cancer from alpha radiation is
> well-known to be a highly non-linear, threshold-like phenomenon that is
> only effective at very high doses (Evans, et al., radium-226 papers). In
> addition most normal background radiation exposure is associated with high
> energy alpha radiation to the lung tissues from radon decay products, and
> there is apparently little health risk from these exposures (Cohen's
> ecological studies).
>
> Otto
>
> **********************************************
> Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
> Center for Health & the Environment
> (Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road)
> University of California, Davis, CA 95616
> E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu
> Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140
> ***********************************************
> ************************************************************************
> 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: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 07:30:43 -0800
From: "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
December 5, 2001
Davis, CA
Professor Cohen's radon studies have the advantage of looking at the
overall relationship of elevated radon and lung cancer. BEIR VI is a
constructed model (actually exponential as shown but intended to be a LNT
model) which depends on the linearized attempt to estimate the risk at zero
exposure using imprecise data. The radon doses to lung have considerable
uncontrolled uncertainties. The Iowa Study was not designed to have the
power to detect a radon risk that was overshadowed by the overwhelming
tobacco smoke risk and the radon doses to lung tissue have large
uncertainties.
Otto
**********************************************
Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
Center for Health & the Environment
(Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road)
University of California, Davis, CA 95616
E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu
Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140
***********************************************
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 10:46:23 -0500 (EST)
From: BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU>
Subject: RE: Nukes in Space...
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Thomas J Savin wrote:
> HMMMmmmmmmm - let me think here for just a second. Yes I know what will happen
. Since the earth rotates faster than the moon - The earth will reel in the moon
, then the moon will collide with the earth and both are now on there way to hit
the sun and be absorbed! WOW! We do not have to worry about the travels of
waste shipments form nuclear facilities. The good ol' sun will take care of
everything. Enjoy?
Basic Physics: No forces between the Earth and the moon can affect
the motion of the center of gravity of the Earth-moon system. It is that
center of gravity that orbits the sun, so there would be no effect on that
orbit.
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 07:56:57 -0800
From: Jack_Earley@RL.GOV
Subject: RE: Wisdom Re Norm
Well, I don't have a Bible at work. I just assumed he was referring to one
of the many references about not trying to teach a fool.
Jack Earley
Radiological Engineer
- -----Original Message-----
From: Estabrooks, Bates (IHK) [mailto:IHK@Y12.doe.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 5:15 AM
To: 'radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu'
Subject: Wisdom Re Norm
As soon as I saw Steve Frantz' posting which simply said: "Proverbs 26:4" a
grin spread across my face. But, as I recently discussed with my kids, that
verse is followed by 26:5 which offers seeming contradictory counsel. It
takes wisdom, and a knowledge of the "recipient" (the proverb uses another
term), to know whether a response will have benefit or not.
Thanks, Steve, for the reminder.
Bates Estabrooks
Facility Safety-EUO Restart
BWXT Y-12
9983-FS
P.O. Box 2009
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
865-574-7376
865-241-5780 (Facsimile)
ihk@y12.doe.gov <mailto:ihk@y12.doe.gov>
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 16:33:16 +0000
From: "Jim Nelson" <nelsonjima@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
Phillippe,
I know this is not the position endorsed by Radiation Science and Health (so
dare I speak it without fear of attack), but Lubin's and Smith et al.
refutation of Cohen's data were very convinvcing to me.
Jim
>From: "Philippe Duport" <pduport@uottawa.ca>
>Jim Nelson reminds us of BEIR VI and of the Iowa study; Otto of Bernie
>Cohen's work. Radon epidemiology would be more instructive if real
>uncertainties in exposures (and, if low radiation dose to the lung is the
>cause of cancer, all non-radon lung doses - and associated errors -
>received
>by uranium miners) were taken into account in determining comprehensive
>error bars. Bernie Cohen's work has been criticized but I may have missed
>a
>numerical refutation of his conclusions (how big should have been the
>confounders and what correlation should there be between them to account
>for
>the discrepancy with LNT predictions?).
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 08:45:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Arclight <arclight@exo.com>
Subject: Victoreen 440R/F
Does anyone have a manual for the Victoreen 440R/F X-ray survey meter?
Specifically, I need to know what the proper battery configuraiton is.
Also, a detailed description of the calibration procedure would be helpful
as well.
Thanks,
John Norman
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:46:13 -0500
From: "Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@AECL.CA>
Subject: RE: Nukes in Space...
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C17DAC.59B537E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
BERNARD L COHEN wrote :
Basic Physics: No forces between the Earth and the moon can affect
the motion of the center of gravity of the Earth-moon system. It is that
center of gravity that orbits the sun, so there would be no effect on that
orbit.
************************************************************************
Good point.
Moreover, it turns out that this same basic physics leads to the fact that
sending anything - e.g.. nuke waste - into the sun is much more difficult
(in terms of rocket energy & propellant expenditure -- specified by the
"delta-V" required) than sending it to Mars or the outer planets. In the
latter case, the spacecraft must be accelerated in order to reach the orbits
of the more distant planets, while in the case of the sun and the inner
planets (Venus, Mercury), the spacecraft must be decelerated, in order to
drop into a lower orbit - or the sun itself. The delta-V's for inner orbits
are much higher than for outer orbits, since the depth of the "gravitational
well" increases sharply towards the sun, and much more "excess energy" must
be dissipated in order to drop down into it (its the reason why exploration
of the planet Mercury is so difficult, compared to the other planets). It
would be easier to hit the sun by sending the spacecraft out to Jupiter and
using its gravitational field to sling-shoot it backwards, in a somewhat
more extreme manoeuvre than that which was used to send the Ulysses solar
polar orbiter on its way......
Jaro
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C17DAC.59B537E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: Nukes in Space...</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>BERNARD L COHEN wrote :</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=3D2>Basic =
Physics: No forces between the Earth and the moon can affect</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>the motion of the center of gravity of the =
Earth-moon system. It is that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>center of gravity that orbits the sun, so there =
would be no effect on that orbit.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>***************************************************************=
*********</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Good point. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Moreover, it turns out that this same basic physics =
leads to the fact that sending anything - e.g.. nuke waste - into the =
sun is much more difficult (in terms of rocket energy & propellant =
expenditure -- specified by the "delta-V" required) than =
sending it to Mars or the outer planets. In the latter case, the =
spacecraft must be accelerated in order to reach the orbits of the more =
distant planets, while in the case of the sun and the inner planets =
(Venus, Mercury), the spacecraft must be decelerated, in order to drop =
into a lower orbit - or the sun itself. The delta-V's for inner orbits =
are much higher than for outer orbits, since the depth of the =
"gravitational well" increases sharply towards the sun, and =
much more "excess energy" must be dissipated in order to drop =
down into it (its the reason why exploration of the planet Mercury is =
so difficult, compared to the other planets). It would be easier to hit =
the sun by sending the spacecraft out to Jupiter and using its =
gravitational field to sling-shoot it backwards, in a somewhat more =
extreme manoeuvre than that which was used to send the Ulysses solar =
polar orbiter on its way......</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Jaro</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C17DAC.59B537E0--
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 10:22:10 -0700
From: Chris Davey <chris.davey@cancerboard.ab.ca>
Subject: Re: December 5th Safety at Nuclear Plants
Hi all,
Just sent this in to the NY Times....
Subject: December 5th Safety at Nuclear Plants
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 10:03:13 -0700
From: Chris Davey <chris.davey@cancerboard.ab.ca>
To: letters@nytimes.com
Your article today finally brought me to the point of having to
respond. There has been an almost endless stream of hyped up paranoia
about Nuclear Power Plants since September 11th. The truth is almost
the opposite, and is borne out by the targets chosen by the
terrorists, a group of people who obviously understand the difference
between reality and perceptions.
The terrorists targetted the WTC, because they knew the effects would
be immediate and catastrophic. They did not target any Nuclear Power
Plants, because they knew that, apart from causing some panic in the
first few minutes and hours after an attack, the effects would be
minimal. Even if some radiation were released due to cracking of
containment structures (a very unlikely scenario), the result would be
a very small theoretical increase in the probability of cancers in
several years time. There are so many other targets which would
generate spectacular, deadly results, and these results would be
immediate. Obviously, for reasons of national security, these targets
should not be spelled out in newspaper articles, etc., at this
sensitive time. (Look in any industrial areas; they are easy to
spot.)
The citizens, and governing officials of the USA should get the list
of hazards sorted from most likely to least, and should concentrate on
the top of the list, not waste precious resources and nervous energy
on the bottom end. It would also be nice (though highly unlikely) if
the anti-nuclear activists and the media stopped taking the easy route
to success of exaggerating existing fears, without basis in reality.
This does great harm.
Sincerely,
Chris Davey
- --
Provincial RSO / LSO / U-VSO
Alberta Cancer Board, Room 4027, 11560 University Ave,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 1Z2. (780) 432-8665 fax 432-8986
email: cdavey@med.phys.ualberta.ca chris.davey@cancerboard.ab.ca
pager number (780) 917-2043
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 11:32:09 -0600
From: maury <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>
Subject: Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
For one, thanks for taking the trouble to provide the instructive details. I
appreciate the access to data rather than imaginative rhetoric and wishful
thinking,
Sincerely,
Maury Siskel maury@webtexas.com
=================================================
Philippe Duport wrote:
> Re Norm Cohen on PNAS (paper full ref : Zhou et al. Radiation risk to low
> fluencies of alpha particles may be greater than we thought, PNAS
> 98(14410-14415, Dec 4 2001)
>
> Otto Raabe is right. There is no indication of supra-linearity at low
> dose - or dose rates of alpha radiation. Otto mentioned the radium dial
> painters. There are also thresholds at about 2 Gy (40,000 mSv) in Thorotrats
- ---------------------- snipped ----------
> of error into account are welcome.
>
> Sorry for giving so many details!
>
> Philippe Duport
> International Centre for Low Dose Radiation Research
> University of Ottawa
> 555 King Edward Ave.
> Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1N 6N5
> Tel: (613) 562 5800, ext. 1270
> pduport@uottawa.ca
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU>
> To: "Norman Cohen" <ncohen12@HOME.COM>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> ----------------- snipped ------------
> > Don't waste your time reading this New Scientist Article.
> >
> > The fact that high LET alpha radiation can produce unique multiple
> > double-strand DNA lesions and the existence of bystander effects do not
> > imply anything about elevated risk. Cancer from alpha radiation is
> ----------------- snipped --------------------
> > Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
> > Center for Health & the Environment
> > (Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road)
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 17:48:38 +0000
From: "Jim Nelson" <nelsonjima@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
I was able to download a pdf version from this site:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/98/25/14410.pdf
Jim
>From: maury <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>
>Reply-To: maury <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>
>To: Philippe Duport <pduport@uottawa.ca>
>CC: "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU>, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
>Subject: Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
>Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 11:32:09 -0600
>
>For one, thanks for taking the trouble to provide the instructive details.
>I
>appreciate the access to data rather than imaginative rhetoric and wishful
>thinking,
>Sincerely,
>Maury Siskel maury@webtexas.com
>=================================================
>Philippe Duport wrote:
>
> > Re Norm Cohen on PNAS (paper full ref : Zhou et al. Radiation risk to
>low
> > fluencies of alpha particles may be greater than we thought, PNAS
> > 98(14410-14415, Dec 4 2001)
> >
> > Otto Raabe is right. There is no indication of supra-linearity at low
> > dose - or dose rates of alpha radiation. Otto mentioned the radium dial
> > painters. There are also thresholds at about 2 Gy (40,000 mSv) in
>Thorotrats
>
>---------------------- snipped ----------
>
> > of error into account are welcome.
> >
> > Sorry for giving so many details!
> >
> > Philippe Duport
> > International Centre for Low Dose Radiation Research
> > University of Ottawa
> > 555 King Edward Ave.
> > Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1N 6N5
> > Tel: (613) 562 5800, ext. 1270
> > pduport@uottawa.ca
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU>
> > To: "Norman Cohen" <ncohen12@HOME.COM>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> > ----------------- snipped ------------
> > > Don't waste your time reading this New Scientist Article.
> > >
> > > The fact that high LET alpha radiation can produce unique multiple
> > > double-strand DNA lesions and the existence of bystander effects do
>not
> > > imply anything about elevated risk. Cancer from alpha radiation is
> > ----------------- snipped --------------------
> > > Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
> > > Center for Health & the Environment
> > > (Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road)
>
>************************************************************************
>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.
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 11:23:03 -0700
From: "Raymond A. Hoover" <rayhoover@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: RE: Nukes in Space...
You are correct. For this to work, fibers would have to be about 100
kilometers long and without a single flaw. The concept was based on the
tensile strength of flawless fibers.
>From: "Neil, David M" <neildm@ID.DOE.GOV>
>Reply-To: "Neil, David M" <neildm@ID.DOE.GOV>
>To: "'Norman Cohen'" <ncohen12@HOME.COM>, radsafe
><radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
>Subject: RE: Nukes in Space...
>Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 07:44:02 -0700
>
>If memory serves, and I may be misrecalling it, that concept fails on the
>basis of tensile strength of the materials. Also, one of the Shuttle
>flights
>did an experiment to some other purpose, dangling an instrument package on
>a
>cable, and had to abort the experiment and jettison the equipment due to an
>unexpected effect. I don't recall details on that one.
>
>Dave Neil neildm@id.doe.gov
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Norman Cohen [mailto:ncohen12@HOME.COM]
>Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:33 PM
>To: radsafe
>Subject: Re: Nukes in Space...
>
>
>Hi Steve,
>the Magazine was Analog Science Fiction and Science Fact. Be accurate.
>
>I wasn't saying we could do this right now, it was just an idea. In fact, I
>posted the same idea on the old radsafe list. I don't recall that you
>chopped
>my head off back then. I recall that I was asked if I had any plan for
>disposing of nuke waste. Thats the best plan I had then and its the best
>I've
>got now. Don't like it, just ignore it and my postings.
>
>The idea of an equatorial elevator system is that rockets would not be
>used.
>It was many moons ago that I read that article or story, so details are
>hazy.
>
>Speaking about starving, you know I am kinda hungry. Gonna go get me a
>bagel.
>
>Peace
>Norm
>
>Steve Frantz wrote:
>
> > I try to resist answering, but this is too ridiculous...
> >
> > Norm Cohan writes - - -
> > I'm Ok with nuclear powered space craft as long as they are
> > launched in such a way (like from the space station) that there
> > is no chance of their falling back to earth.
> > End quote - - -
> >
> > And exactly how does the plutonium fuel get to the space station
> > in the first place? By rocket.
> >
> > Norm Cohen writes later in the same posting - -
> > I suggested waiting until we had the techology necessary to
> > safely rocket the waste into the sun via an equator elevator
> > system which would lift the waste into orbit, and then oone
> > could send it into the sun. (picked this idea up from an article
> > years ago in Analog magazine).
> > End quote - - -
> >
> > I read that SCIENCE FICTION story at the time and the author
> > explained how it was impossible _even in theory_ to build
> > anything like that. As long as you draw your science from Analog
> > magazine, you must expect some ridicule.
> >
> > Besides, why is the magical elevator safer than rockets? The
> > point of the story was that it was cheaper.
> >
> > Sending nuclear waste to the sun is an absurd idea for many,
> > many reasons that I won't go into; unless someone wants to start
> > a thread on it.
> >
> > Now, back to starving the stray dog and hoping he goes
> > elsewhere.
> >
> > Stephen Frantz
> > sfrantz@yahoo.com
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
> > http://shopping.yahoo.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.
>
>--
>Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr
>Ave.,
>Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8537 or 609-601-8583 (8583: fax, answer
>machine);
>ncohen12@home.com UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE: http://www.unplugsalem.org/
>COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE:
>http:/www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org The Coalition for Peace and
>Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.
>"First they ignore you; Then they laugh at you; Then they fight you; Then
>you
>win. (Gandhi) "Why walk when you can fly?" (Mary Chapin Carpenter)
>
>
>
>
>************************************************************************
>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.
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:29:43 -0800
From: Jack_Earley@RL.GOV
Subject: RE: Article: Technology of 'Dirty Bomb' Simple, but Not the Execu tion
I think this goes to the heart of the "Assume the worst, hope for the best"
principle. Assume it has happened. What would you do? Tell your
mayor/governor/media that the risks are minimal and people should stay calm?
Tell them that their health may actually benefit from the exposure? Tell
them to wash their hands each time they walk into the house? Whatever you
would do, do it now. Do it again the next time an article is published. And
the next time. By the sixth time you do it, people will have a 70 percent
retention of the information. Remember how we used to assume a nuclear war
and practiced going under our desks in school? No one panicked. How many
people panic during an office fire drill? People are afraid of what they
don't understand or haven't experienced. And the subconscious doesn't know
the difference between an actual experience and an imagined one. So if you
want anyone's attention, get it now. Otherwise they won't listen to you when
it counts.
Jack Earley
Radiological Engineer
- -----Original Message-----
From: jenday1 [mailto:jenday1@EMAIL.MSN.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 6:58 AM
To: RADSAFE
Subject: Article: Technology of 'Dirty Bomb' Simple, but Not the
Execution
This appeared in today's Washington Post.
- -- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024
jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
Technology of 'Dirty Bomb' Simple, but Not the Execution
By Guy Gugliotta
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 5, 2001; Page A12
Finding enough radioactive material to make a "dirty bomb" might be
relatively easy, experts say, but the effects of such a weapon could never
remotely approach those of a nuclear explosion.
"The nuclear device is a weapon of mass destruction," said nuclear scientist
Siegfried Hecker, former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
"Dirty bombs are weapons of mass disruption, in terms of frightening people,
the cleanup and the potential economic consequences."
Interest in dirty bombs has deepened recently among U.S. intelligence
officials because of mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda
network may be developing expertise in building them.
But Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said yesterday that U.S.
authorities had no information that bin Laden had made such a weapon. Ridge
added that the Bush administration's latest anti-terrorist alert had nothing
to do with the threat of a dirty bomb. Sources have told The Washington Post
that concerns about al Qaeda's nuclear capabilities had played a role in the
alert.
The technology to make the bomb is relatively simple: Find some radioactive
material, wrap it around a core of ordinary high explosive and detonate it
so that contamination spreads over the widest possible area.
This is not a nuclear explosion. That occurs when two subcritical masses of
highly processed radioactive material are thrust suddenly together,
triggering a violent chain reaction and release of energy.
Blast effects and heat from a nuclear device can flatten city blocks and
kill thousands of people; the only blast from a dirty bomb is provided by
the explosive.
Still, while fatalities may be light, a dirty bomb can cause a higher
incidence of cancer in local residents even decades after the attack, and
more immediately, provokes the same psychology of fear as a chemical or
bioweapons threat. In that respect, Hecker said, a dirty bomb "would have an
instant terrorist effect."
But the bomb-maker must always contend with a Catch-22, for the more
powerful the radiation source, the more dangerous it is to handle. The
weaker the source, the less damage the weapon will cause.
"The dirtiest spent fuel is from a nuclear reactor," said Lisbeth Gronlund,
senior staff scientist of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It is very
radioactive, and one reason to consider it proliferation-resistant is that
the dose you get from stealing it would kill you pretty quickly."
Even if the thief is prepared to die, making bombs from "hot" radioactive
material and getting them to the target present dangers. "How do you figure
out how much you need?" asked Tom Cochrane, nuclear program director for the
Natural Resources Defense Council. "And how do you transport it?"
The alternative is to pick a weaker radiation source. That means using
plutonium or enriched uranium, which give off "alpha" particles that cannot
penetrate the human body from outside, unlike the "gamma" particles or
neutron radiation common in spent fuel waste or cobalt-60.
If the terrorist chooses alpha, then the plutonium must be milled fine, like
anthrax spores, because the only way it can hurt humans is through
inhalation, Cochrane said. This adds another requirement for technical
expertise. But as long as the maker can deal with the radioactivity,
detonating the device is as easy as triggering a bomb in a car or arming it
from the air.
Damage could be problematic, experts say. In October, the nonprofit National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements estimated that
contamination would spread over "only a small area of a few city blocks."
The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War argued that a
plutonium dirty bomb would have almost no immediate health consequences, and
even though it could lead to cancer years after the attack, the effects
"would probably not be dramatic."
Still, the terrorist group that used a dirty bomb would garner immense
prestige among its peers, said British political scientist Gavin Cameron in
a paper prepared last month for the International Atomic Energy Association,
and "the mere fact of being nuclear would almost certainly ensure that it
had a considerable impact on the public's imagination and fear."
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:39:03 -0800
From: "Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>
Subject: Re: Nukes in Space...
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C17D81.70867E00
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
RE: Nukes in Space...Transporting nukewaste to the sun would not only =
be difficult but even if successful would be too dangerous. How could we =
assure that a few plutonium atoms might not migrate through space and =
find their way back to earth. I think we should rocket the waste to =
another galaxy. Where can I apply for a research grant?
Good point.=20
Moreover, it turns out that this same basic physics leads to the fact =
that sending anything - e.g.. nuke waste - into the sun is much more =
difficult (in terms of rocket energy & propellant expenditure -- =
specified by the "delta-V" required) than sending it to Mars or the =
outer planets. In the latter case, the spacecraft must be accelerated in =
order to reach the orbits of the more distant planets, while in the case =
of the sun and the inner planets (Venus, Mercury), the spacecraft must =
be decelerated, in order to drop into a lower orbit - or the sun itself. =
The delta-V's for inner orbits are much higher than for outer orbits, =
since the depth of the "gravitational well" increases sharply towards =
the sun, and much more "excess energy" must be dissipated in order to =
drop down into it (its the reason why exploration of the planet Mercury =
is so difficult, compared to the other planets). It would be easier to =
hit the sun by sending the spacecraft out to Jupiter and using its =
gravitational field to sling-shoot it backwards, in a somewhat more =
extreme manoeuvre than that which was used to send the Ulysses solar =
polar orbiter on its way......
Jaro=20
- ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C17D81.70867E00
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><TITLE>RE: Nukes in Space...</TITLE>
<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=3DArial size=3D2>Transporting nukewaste to the sun =
would not=20
only be difficult but even if successful would be too dangerous. How =
could we=20
assure that a few plutonium atoms might not migrate through space and =
find their=20
way back to earth. I think we should rocket the waste to =
another=20
galaxy. Where can I apply for a research grant?</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<P><FONT size=3D2>Good point. </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>Moreover, it =
turns out=20
that this same basic physics leads to the fact that sending anything - =
e.g..=20
nuke waste - into the sun is much more difficult (in terms of rocket =
energy=20
& propellant expenditure -- specified by the "delta-V" required) =
than=20
sending it to Mars or the outer planets. In the latter case, the =
spacecraft=20
must be accelerated in order to reach the orbits of the more distant =
planets,=20
while in the case of the sun and the inner planets (Venus, Mercury), =
the=20
spacecraft must be decelerated, in order to drop into a lower orbit - =
or the=20
sun itself. The delta-V's for inner orbits are much higher than for =
outer=20
orbits, since the depth of the "gravitational well" increases sharply =
towards=20
the sun, and much more "excess energy" must be dissipated in order to =
drop=20
down into it (its the reason why exploration of the planet Mercury is =
so=20
difficult, compared to the other planets). It would be easier to hit =
the sun=20
by sending the spacecraft out to Jupiter and using its gravitational =
field to=20
sling-shoot it backwards, in a somewhat more extreme manoeuvre than =
that which=20
was used to send the Ulysses solar polar orbiter on its =
way......</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Jaro</FONT> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C17D81.70867E00--
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 13:37:36 -0600
From: maury <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>
Subject: Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
Thanks for citing the URL
Maury Siskel
===================================
Jim Nelson wrote:
> I was able to download a pdf version from this site:
> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/98/25/14410.pdf
> Jim
> >From: maury <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>
> >Reply-To: maury <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>
- ---- snipped -------------
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 13:46:32 -0600
From: glen.vickers@EXELONCORP.COM
Subject: RE: Nukes in Space...
If I recall the space shuttle incident, they had some expensive item they
were going to reel in. With the mass of the item and the very long cabling
layed out, they broke the cable when they tried to reel it in. The cable
broke at the cable reel end because this is where the strain is the
greatest. The amount of strain/inch is greatest at the cable reel end due
to this being the point where the greatest amount of mass must be moved.
The function dStrain/dLength increases as you get closer to the cable real
because the function of mass on the other side of the strain point is also
increasing. The strain at the other end of the cable would be less due to
the mass of the cable being on the other side of the stress point.
And finally things at rest desire to stay at rest. Perhaps if they tried to
accelerate the mass slower, the cable may not have failed.
Perfect topic for high school physics...
Glen Vickers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raymond A. Hoover [SMTP:rayhoover@HOTMAIL.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 12:23 PM
> To: neildm@ID.DOE.GOV; ncohen12@HOME.COM; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Subject: RE: Nukes in Space...
>
> You are correct. For this to work, fibers would have to be about 100
> kilometers long and without a single flaw. The concept was based on the
> tensile strength of flawless fibers.
>
>
> >From: "Neil, David M" <neildm@ID.DOE.GOV>
> >Reply-To: "Neil, David M" <neildm@ID.DOE.GOV>
> >To: "'Norman Cohen'" <ncohen12@HOME.COM>, radsafe
> ><radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> >Subject: RE: Nukes in Space...
> >Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 07:44:02 -0700
> >
> >If memory serves, and I may be misrecalling it, that concept fails on the
> >basis of tensile strength of the materials. Also, one of the Shuttle
> >flights
> >did an experiment to some other purpose, dangling an instrument package
> on
> >a
> >cable, and had to abort the experiment and jettison the equipment due to
> an
> >unexpected effect. I don't recall details on that one.
> >
> >Dave Neil neildm@id.doe.gov
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Norman Cohen [mailto:ncohen12@HOME.COM]
> >Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:33 PM
> >To: radsafe
> >Subject: Re: Nukes in Space...
> >
> >
> >Hi Steve,
> >the Magazine was Analog Science Fiction and Science Fact. Be accurate.
> >
> >I wasn't saying we could do this right now, it was just an idea. In fact,
> I
> >posted the same idea on the old radsafe list. I don't recall that you
> >chopped
> >my head off back then. I recall that I was asked if I had any plan for
> >disposing of nuke waste. Thats the best plan I had then and its the best
> >I've
> >got now. Don't like it, just ignore it and my postings.
> >
> >The idea of an equatorial elevator system is that rockets would not be
> >used.
> >It was many moons ago that I read that article or story, so details are
> >hazy.
> >
> >Speaking about starving, you know I am kinda hungry. Gonna go get me a
> >bagel.
> >
> >Peace
> >Norm
> >
> >Steve Frantz wrote:
> >
> > > I try to resist answering, but this is too ridiculous...
> > >
> > > Norm Cohan writes - - -
> > > I'm Ok with nuclear powered space craft as long as they are
> > > launched in such a way (like from the space station) that there
> > > is no chance of their falling back to earth.
> > > End quote - - -
> > >
> > > And exactly how does the plutonium fuel get to the space station
> > > in the first place? By rocket.
> > >
> > > Norm Cohen writes later in the same posting - -
> > > I suggested waiting until we had the techology necessary to
> > > safely rocket the waste into the sun via an equator elevator
> > > system which would lift the waste into orbit, and then oone
> > > could send it into the sun. (picked this idea up from an article
> > > years ago in Analog magazine).
> > > End quote - - -
> > >
> > > I read that SCIENCE FICTION story at the time and the author
> > > explained how it was impossible _even in theory_ to build
> > > anything like that. As long as you draw your science from Analog
> > > magazine, you must expect some ridicule.
> > >
> > > Besides, why is the magical elevator safer than rockets? The
> > > point of the story was that it was cheaper.
> > >
> > > Sending nuclear waste to the sun is an absurd idea for many,
> > > many reasons that I won't go into; unless someone wants to start
> > > a thread on it.
> > >
> > > Now, back to starving the stray dog and hoping he goes
> > > elsewhere.
> > >
> > > Stephen Frantz
> > > sfrantz@yahoo.com
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
> > > http://shopping.yahoo.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.
> >
> >--
> >Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr
> >Ave.,
> >Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8537 or 609-601-8583 (8583: fax, answer
> >machine);
> >ncohen12@home.com UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE: http://www.unplugsalem.org/
> >COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE:
> >http:/www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org The Coalition for Peace and
> >Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.
> >"First they ignore you; Then they laugh at you; Then they fight you; Then
> >you
> >win. (Gandhi) "Why walk when you can fly?" (Mary Chapin Carpenter)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >************************************************************************
> >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.
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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 Corporation
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject
to copyright belonging to the Exelon Corporation 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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 19:05:44 -0700
From: "L. A. Doerr" <lawrence_doerr@bigfoot.com>
Subject: Spin-off group
I created the Health Physics group (listserver) on Yahoo as a more serious
and HP specific version of DOEwatch and know_nukes. If you are interested,
it can be found at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/health_physics
Happy Holidays!
************************************************************************
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: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 08:00:38 -0500
From: "Dave Biela" <BielaD@wvnsco.com>
Subject: Testing Radiological Filters
We are looking for acceptable methods of challenge testing radio nuclide filters. Basically other than "THERMAL" generators; had some bad luck with that.
We have used: Dioctyle Phthalate (DOP)
Poly-Alpha Olephin (PAO)
As always Thank You in advance for your comments.
Dave Biela
************************************************************************
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 #251
*****************************
***********************************************************************
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. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/