[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: radsafe-digest V1 #789



It is interesting to have read the assumptions made in the calculations of

75 tons of DU in Iraq.  Does it mean that the American military is going to

collect DU it used there and disperse it over the whole of the Iraq

territory and in addition bury it to a depth of a few cm.  You can see why

the public is very sceptical of radiation experts when they tell them that

DU is safe and there is nothing to worry about it.  How many of these

experts would have they children or grandchildren play in the dirty

contaminated with DU.  DU has been used in third world countries as a

Radiation and Chemical weapon of Mass Contamination - contamination that

will last in countries like Iraq for billions of years.



G Bibbo



	----------

	From:  owner-radsafe-digest@list.vanderbilt.edu

	Sent:  Wednesday, 21 May 2003 02:52

	To:  radsafe-digest@list.vanderbilt.edu

	Subject:  radsafe-digest V1 #789





	radsafe-digest          Tuesday, May 20 2003          Volume 01 :

Number 789







	In this issue:



	    Re: AW: [Fwd: [Know_Nukes] (NYT) Navajo Miners Battle a Deadly

Legacy of Yell...

	    Re: DU in Iraq

	    Risks and their avoidance

	    Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL

IN MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC

	    UD802 and dose from AmBe

	    Re: DU in Iraq

	    Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL

INMICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC

	    RE: 33P/166Ho Skin Dose Factors 

	    Questions on NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109

	    Consider the following

	    Re: Risks and their avoidance

	    Re: DU in Iraq - relevant comparisons

	    Not being a statistic

	    Re: AW: [Fwd: [Know_Nukes] (NYT) Navajo Miners Battle a Deadly

Legacy of Yell...

	    RE: Risks and their avoidance

	    Re: AW: [Fwd: [Know_Nukes] (NYT) Navajo Miners Battle a Deadly

Legacy of Yell...

	    Re: Tooth fairy inspired law suit

	    radiography - deja vu all over again

	    Re: Risks and their avoidance

	    Re: Radiation sickness

	    Re: Tooth fairy inspired law suit

	    Harvard Announces Industrial Hygiene Program

	    RE: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL

IN   MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC



	

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



	Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 20:36:31 -0700

	From: "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU>

	Subject: Re: AW: [Fwd: [Know_Nukes] (NYT) Navajo Miners Battle a

Deadly Legacy of Yell...



	May 19, 2003

	Davis, CA



	If my memory serves me right, there was a uranium ore processing

mill near

	Grants, NM, in the 1960's. Does anyone else remember a uranium mill

in New

	Mexico?



	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 22:49:27 -0500

	From: "David Whitfill" <djwhitfill@MSN.COM>

	Subject: Re: DU in Iraq



	This is a multi-part message in MIME format.



	- ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C31E58.E7570120

	Content-Type: text/plain;

		charset="iso-8859-1"

	Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



	Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on battlefield legacies that

are =

	killing and maiming people right now, such as unexploded ordinance =

	(including mines)? It seems almost a crime to divert resources away

from =

	these efforts in a hunt for spent depleted uranium rounds.=20



	If we are concerned with real lives saved, then how about doing a =

	calculation showing the number of US military deaths avoided due to

=

	enemy armor being neutralized? 75 tons of depleted uranium peppering

the =

	countryside of Iraq is a small price to pay for avoided sorrow and

grief =

	of the families of these brave and noble patriots. I most certainly

=

	don't want to be the first on my block to see my son come home in a

box =

	or have to go to Washington, D.C., to touch his name on a wall

because =

	he never came home.



	What is our fascination with something that may hypothetically kill

us =

	at some distant point in the future rather than the real hazards

that =

	will kill you right now? The argument about fear of the unknown and

=

	perception of ri$k is certainly getting old.



	Of course I feel the same way about the EPA radon program. I feel

our =

	resources would be better spent on providing smoke and carbon

monoxide =

	detectors for households. The deaths that occur each year from fires

and =

	carbon monoxide poisoning is very real. Our family can take you to a

=

	family grave site that will attest to that. I would bet that some of

you =

	reading this message board can do the same.



	DJWHitfill CHP

	- ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C31E58.E7570120

	Content-Type: text/html;

		charset="iso-8859-1"

	Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



	<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

	<HTML><HEAD>

	<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type =

	content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1>

	<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=3DGENERATOR>

	<STYLE></STYLE>

	</HEAD>

	<BODY id=3DMailContainerBody=20

	style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; =

	COLOR: #000000; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 15px;

FONT-STYLE: =

	normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; =

	BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TEXT-DECORATION: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE:

=

	none"=20

	leftMargin=3D0 topMargin=3D0 acc_role=3D"text"

CanvasTabStop=3D"true"=20

	name=3D"Compose message area"><?xml:namespace prefix=3D"v" =

	/><?xml:namespace prefix=3D"o" />

	<DIV>

	<P>Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on battlefield legacies that

are =

	killing=20

	and maiming people right now, such as unexploded ordinance

(including =

	mines)? It=20

	seems almost a crime to divert resources away from these efforts in

a =

	hunt for=20

	spent depleted uranium rounds. </P>

	<P>If we are concerned with real lives saved, then how about doing a

=

	calculation=20

	showing the number of US military deaths avoided due to enemy armor

=

	being=20

	neutralized? 75 tons of depleted uranium peppering the countryside

of =

	Iraq is a=20

	small price to pay for avoided sorrow and grief of the families of

these =

	brave=20

	and noble patriots. I most certainly don't want to be the first on

my =

	block to=20

	see my son come home in a box or have to go to Washington, D.C., to

=

	touch his=20

	name on a wall because he never came home.</P>

	<P>What is our fascination with something that may hypothetically

kill =

	us at=20

	some distant point in the future rather than the real hazards that

will =

	kill you=20

	right now? The argument about fear of the unknown and perception of

ri$k =

	is=20

	certainly getting old.</P>

	<P>Of course I feel the same way about the EPA radon program. I feel

our =



	resources would be better spent on providing smoke and carbon

monoxide =

	detectors=20

	for households. The deaths that occur each year from fires and

carbon =

	monoxide=20

	poisoning is very real. Our family can take you to a family grave

site =

	that will=20

	attest to that. I would bet that some of you reading this message

board =

	can do=20

	the same.</P></DIV>

	<DIV>DJWHitfill CHP</DIV></BODY></HTML>



	- ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C31E58.E7570120--

	

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

	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 22:45:39 -0700

	From: "Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>

	Subject: Risks and their avoidance



	There has been a lot of discussion of the relative merits of one

risk over 

	another on this list.



	At the suggestion of one of the members of this list, I'm starting

to read 

	"Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation" by

Justice 

	Stephen Breyer.



	As I started to read this he shows the percentages of risk of death

per 

	100,000 (I think) population, and being hit by lightning is very

low.



	However, one of the things you learn early on are all of the

procedures to 

	protect yourself from being hit by lightning. If you're holding a

metal 

	umbrella on the top of a hill during an electrical storm, your odds 

	certainly increase.



	Of course, dying by an infrequent event is binary for the individual

who 

	dies. It's 1 or 0. There are no percentages. Percentages apply

across the 

	entire population. One of my goals in life is NOT to be a statistic

nor to 

	have my children be statistics.



	Yes, we can certainly go too far in spending oodles of money to save

little 

	risk, but education on risk avoidance, research into risk avoidance,

and 

	low cost expenditures to "be safe" are all very helpful towards

individuals 

	who do not want to become one of the "rare" statistics.



	Now, I am not sure that being cautious and conservative actually

puts more 

	of a risk of death by lightning (for example) onto others in the

same way 

	that having a burglar alarm decreases your chances of being

burglarized at 

	the expense of your neighbor who doesn't have the alarm.



	So we can talk all we want to about overall statistics, but not

becoming 

	one of the statistics is based in education and common sense.



	For example, I have smoke and heat detectors throughout my home. I

have a 

	carbon monoxide detector in my bedroom. I've spent less than $1000

on this, 

	and it's that much because it's centrally wired (for the 

	smoke/heat/intrusion/panic system).



	And yes, prudence (who is that lady, anyway?) demanded that I run a 

	canister radon test when I moved into my home here almost 20 years

ago. I 

	think it was $30. No appreciable risk. Oh, and I measure 14µR on a

G-M 

	counter as background. Now that is slightly over-the-top paranoia,

but 

	obtaining that type of instrumentation was my response to dirty bomb

scares.



	So, once we can measure the risk and have inexpensive sentinels

watching 

	out for us, ready to chirp or howl at the slightest provocation, our



	likelihood of becoming one of the statistics is reduced. Not

eliminated. 

	Reduced.



	How can we get society to take responsibility on a personal level?

In 

	California we have a warning almost every where (I think it's Prop

65, 

	Barbara?) that says "this business uses stuff that is known to the

state of 

	California as a carcinogen" or something equally scary. So, I mean

this is 

	on my parking garage at the office. What do I do? Not park? Walk to

work 

	and inhale the same stuff on the street? Puleeze!



	Education is key--and that's a life-long process.



	Cheers,



	Richard







	

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

	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:42:41 +0200

	From: Jose Julio Rozental <joseroze@netvision.net.il>

	Subject: Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY

HOSPITAL IN MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC



	This is a multi-part message in MIME format.



	- --Boundary_(ID_/CafwZ4GJ94zwZla+GXzvQ)

	Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

	Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable



	 how much control over the patient and family is required before the

NRC =

	determines the control is adequate?



	Considering International Recommendation as in the IAEA Basic Safety

=

	Standards, Safety Series 115, 1996, the

	GUIDANCE LEVEL OF ACTIVITY FOR DISCHARGE FROM HOSPITAL (page 284)

	TABLE III-VI. GUIDANCE LEVEL FOR MAXIMUM ACTIVITY FOR

	PATIENTS IN THERAPY ON DISCHARGE FROM HOSPITAL

	Iodine-131 1100 MBq -  In some countries a level of 400 MBq

	is used as an example of good practice.



	About Control (page 58)



	CONTROL OF VISITORS

	III.5. Registrants and licensees, in co-operation with employers

when =

	appropriate,

	shall:

	(a) ensure that visitors be accompanied in any controlled area by a

=

	person

	knowledgeable about the protection and safety measures for that

area;

	(b) provide adequate information and instruction to visitors before

they =

	enter a

	controlled area so as to ensure appropriate protection of the

visitors =

	and of

	other individuals who could be affected by their actions; and

	(c) ensure that adequate control over entry of visitors to a

supervised =

	area be maintained

	and that appropriate signs be posted in such areas.



	LESSON TO BE LEARNED BY LICENSEE:

	Minimize misunderstanding, and as result mismanagement, in case of =

	doubt, ask to Regulatory Authority to clarify.=20

	Example of a possible misunderstanding - What does  (when

appropriate) =

	means



	Jose Julio Rozental

	joseroze@netvision.net.il

	Israel













	  ----- Original Message -----=20

	  From: Knapp, Steven J.=20

	  To: 'radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu'=20

	  Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 3:30 PM

	  Subject: RE: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY =

	HOSPITAL IN MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC





	  I am not a lawyer, but I surmise patients have the right to

terminate =

	their medical treatment and go home at any time unless they pose =

	imminent danger to the public.  If a patient goes home, the

situation is =

	not monitored.  Where is the consistency in mitigating the radiation

=

	risk when the patient is hospitalized versus being at home?  This =

	appears to be a regulatory problem, not a health risk problem.  The

NRC =

	consultant stated the radiation health risk to family members was =

	insignificant.



	  The questions still remains, how much control over the patient and

=

	family is required before the NRC determines the control is

adequate?  =

	Would the NRC have a similar conclusion if an RSO completed the =

	procedures listed in the NRC letter to St. Joseph Mercy Hospital and

a =

	noncompliant and informed family member exceeded the radiation dose

=

	limit?



	  It is obvious the RSO could have done things to lessen the

opportunity =

	for the NRC to find fault, but even if he did, would that have been

=

	enough?



	  Steve Knapp, Ph.D.





	  ge-----

	  From: John Johnson [mailto:idias@interchange.ubc.ca]

	  Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 3:01 PM

	  To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

	  Subject: Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY =

	HOSPITAL IN MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC





	    Radsafers



	    I think you all should join me in thanking John for this.=20



	    Hopefully it (the subject) will now decay away:-).



	    John

	    __________________

	    John R Johnson, PhD

	    idias@interchange.ubc.ca

	    =20

	      ----- Original Message -----=20

	      From: John Jacobus=20

	      To: Carol Marcus ; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu=20

	      Cc: njd@NRC.GOV ; jmer@NRC.GOV ; exm@NRC.GOV ; gjd@NRC.GOV ; =

	siegelja@AOL.COM ; CJP1@NRC.GOV ; rwb@NRC.GOV ; REZ@NRC.GOV=20

	      Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 10:06 AM

	      Subject: Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY

=

	HOSPITAL IN MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC





	      For clarification, the report can be found at =

	

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/materia=

	ls/ea02248.html



	      With regard to exposure rate values, these are in the report:0

	            B.   10 CFR 20.1301(a)(2) requires that each licensee =

	conduct operations so that the dose in any unrestricted area from =

	external sources, with exceptions not applicable here, does not

exceed 2 =

	millirem in any one hour.



	            Contrary to the above, the licensee conducted operations

so =

	that the dose in unrestricted areas exceeded 2 millirem in any one

hour. =

	Specifically, licensee operations on July 1, 2002, resulted in a

dose of =

	10 millirem in one hour in an emergency exit stairway, and a dose of

=

	17millirem in one hour outside the ground floor window of a

patient's =

	room. Licensee operations continued through July 7, 2002, when the =

	resultant doses were 4 millirem in one hour and 8 millirem in one

hour, =

	respectively.=20



	          =20



	      It should be noted that these values are outside of the

patents =

	room.  I assume next to the bed the dose rates would be

significantly =

	higher. =20



	      Also, NCRP 37 provides recommendations.  The NRC grants a

license =

	under which the  licensee agrees to operate.  You cannot pick the =

	regulations you like to follow.





	      Carol Marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu> wrote:



	        . . .



	        So, where does 3 to 15 rem come from? Nowhere credible.  As

I =

	see it, the member of the family elected to get a radiation dose

that is =

	judged safe for radiation workers, in order to be with a dying

relative. =

	 Seems reasonable to me.



	        It may be reasonable to point out that 10 CFR Part 20

includes =

	the last sentence of 20.1001:  "However, nothing in this part shall

be =

	construed as limiting actions that may be necessary to protect

health =

	and safety."  I would sincerely argue that the mental health of the

=

	member of the family comes under this clause, and that the standards

=

	need not apply.  The care and peace of mind of the dying patient

should =

	be considered as well.  While I would go to great lengths to prevent

a =

	member of the family from receiving a dose that I know to be

harmful, I =

	don't see any reason to become hysterical about a dose that is a!

bout =

	what a radiation worker may receive in a year, or significantly

less.  =

	In NCRP no. 37, it is recommended that family members over 45 not =

	receive more than 5 rads from the patient.  I don't know how old the

=

	family member in question was, but clearly there are standards that

=

	would support much higher radiation doses than the NRC seems

prepared to =

	permit in extreme circumstances.













	      -- John

	      John Jacobus, MS

	      Certified Health Physicist

	      e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com=20





	-

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=

	- -

	      Do you Yahoo!?

	      The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.



	- --Boundary_(ID_/CafwZ4GJ94zwZla+GXzvQ)

	Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

	Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT



	<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

	<HTML><HEAD>

	<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html;

charset=iso-8859-1">

	<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>

	<STYLE></STYLE>

	</HEAD>

	<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>

	<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><STRONG>&nbsp;<U>how much control

over the 

	patient and family is required</U> before the NRC determines the

control is 

	adequate?</STRONG></FONT></DIV>

	<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>

	<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Considering International

Recommendation as in the 

	IAEA Basic Safety Standards, Safety Series 115, 1996,

the</FONT></DIV>

	<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>GUIDANCE LEVEL OF ACTIVITY

FOR DISCHARGE 

	FROM HOSPITAL (page 284)</FONT></DIV>

	<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>TABLE III-VI. GUIDANCE LEVEL

FOR MAXIMUM 

	ACTIVITY FOR</FONT></DIV>

	<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>PATIENTS IN THERAPY ON

DISCHARGE FROM 

	HOSPITAL</FONT></DIV>

	<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>Iodine-131

1100</FONT><FONT 

	size=2> MBq - &nbsp;In some countries a level of 400 

	MBq</DIV></FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>

	<DIV align=left>is used as an example of good practice.</DIV>

	<DIV align=left>&nbsp;</DIV>

	<DIV align=left><STRONG>About Control (page

58)</STRONG></DIV></FONT>

	<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV><FONT face="Times

New Roman">

	<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>CONTROL OF

VISITORS</FONT></DIV>

	<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>III.5. Registrants and

licensees, in 

	co-operation with employers when appropriate,</FONT></DIV>

	<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial

size=2>shall:</FONT></DIV></FONT><FONT 

	face=Arial size=2>

	<DIV align=left>(a) ensure that visitors be accompanied in any

controlled area 

	by a person</DIV></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>

	<DIV align=left>knowledgeable about the protection and safety

measures for that 

	area;</DIV></FONT>

	<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>(b) provide adequate

information and 

	instruction to visitors before they enter a</FONT></DIV>

	<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>controlled area so as to

ensure 

	appropriate protection of the visitors and of</FONT></DIV><FONT

face=Arial 

	size=2>

	<DIV align=left>other individuals who could be affected by their

actions; 

	and</DIV></FONT>

	<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>(c) ensure that

adequate control 

	over entry of visitors to a supervised area be main</FONT><FONT 

	size=2>tained</FONT></FONT></DIV>

	<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>and that appropriate signs

be posted in 

	such areas.</FONT></DIV>

	<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>

	<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG>LESSON TO BE LEARNED

BY 

	LICENSEE:</STRONG></FONT></DIV>

	<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG>Minimize

misunderstanding, and 

	as result mismanagement, in case of doubt, ask to Regulatory

Authority to 

	clarify. </STRONG></FONT></DIV>

	<DIV align=left><STRONG><FONT face=Arial size=2>Example of a

possible 

	misunderstanding - What does&nbsp; (when appropriate) 

	means</FONT></STRONG></DIV>

	<DIV align=left><STRONG><FONT face=Arial

size=2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>

	<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jose Julio

Rozental</FONT></DIV>

	<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><A 

	

href="mailto:joseroze@netvision.net.il";>joseroze@netvision.net.il</A></FONT>

</DIV>

	<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>Israel</FONT></DIV>

	<P align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</P><FONT 

	face="Times New Roman">

	<P align=left><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</P></FONT>

	<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>

	<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

	<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr 

	style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;

BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

	  <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>

	  <DIV 

	  style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color:

black"><B>From:</B> 

	  <A title=Steven.Knapp@MED.VA.GOV

href="mailto:Steven.Knapp@MED.VA.GOV";>Knapp, 

	  Steven J.</A> </DIV>

	  <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A

title=radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu 

	

href="mailto:'radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu'">'radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu'</A

> 

	  </DIV>

	  <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, May 19, 2003

3:30 PM</DIV>

	  <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: NRC PROPOSES

$6,000 FINE 

	  AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL IN MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO

A MEMBER OF 

	  THE PUBLIC</DIV>

	  <DIV><BR></DIV>

	  <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN

class=871454312-19052003>I am 

	  not a lawyer, but I surmise patients have the right to terminate

their medical 

	  treatment and go home at any time unless they pose imminent danger

to the 

	  public.&nbsp; If a patient goes home, the situation is not

monitored.&nbsp; 

	  Where is the consistency in mitigating the radiation risk when the

patient is 

	  hospitalized versus being at home?&nbsp; This appears to be a

regulatory 

	  problem, not a health risk problem.&nbsp; The NRC consultant

stated the 

	  radiation health risk to family members was

insignificant.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>

	  <DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 

	  size=2></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>

	  <DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>

	  <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN

class=871454312-19052003>The 

	  questions still remains, <U>how much control over the patient and

family is 

	  required</U> before the NRC determines the control is

adequate?&nbsp; Would 

	  the NRC have a similar conclusion if an RSO completed the

procedures listed in 

	  the NRC letter to St. Joseph Mercy Hospital and a noncompliant and

informed 

	  family member exceeded the radiation dose

limit?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>

	  <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 

	  class=871454312-19052003></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>

	  <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN

class=871454312-19052003>It 

	  is obvious the RSO could have done things to lessen the

opportunity for the 

	  NRC to find fault, but even if he did, would that have been 

	  enough?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>

	  <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 

	  class=871454312-19052003></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>

	  <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 

	  class=871454312-19052003>Steve Knapp, Ph.D.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>

	  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

	  <DIV></FONT><BR></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT

size=2>ge-----<BR><B>From:</B> 

	  John Johnson [mailto:idias@interchange.ubc.ca]<BR><B>Sent:</B>

Friday, May 16, 

	  2003 3:01 PM<BR><B>To:</B>

radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: 

	  NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL IN

MICHIGAN FOR 

	  OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE

PUBLIC<BR><BR></FONT></FONT></DIV></DIV>

	  <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

	    <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Radsafers</FONT></DIV>

	    <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>

	    <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think you all should join me in

thanking John 

	    for this. </FONT></DIV>

	    <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>

	    <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hopefully it (the subject) will now

decay 

	    away:-).</FONT></DIV>

	    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

	    <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>John</FONT></DIV>

	    <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>__________________<BR>John R

Johnson, PhD<BR><A 

	

href="mailto:idias@interchange.ubc.ca";>idias@interchange.ubc.ca</A><BR>&nbsp

;</FONT></DIV>

	    <BLOCKQUOTE 

	    style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;

BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

	      <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----

</DIV>

	      <DIV 

	      style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color:

black"><B>From:</B> 

	      <A title=crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM

href="mailto:crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM";>John 

	      Jacobus</A> </DIV>

	      <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A

title=csmarcus@ucla.edu 

	      href="mailto:csmarcus@ucla.edu";>Carol Marcus</A> ; <A 

	      title=radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu 

	

href="mailto:radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu";>radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu</A> 

	      </DIV>

	      <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=njd@NRC.GOV 

	      href="mailto:njd@NRC.GOV";>njd@NRC.GOV</A> ; <A

title=jmer@NRC.GOV 

	      href="mailto:jmer@NRC.GOV";>jmer@NRC.GOV</A> ; <A

title=exm@NRC.GOV 

	      href="mailto:exm@NRC.GOV";>exm@NRC.GOV</A> ; <A

title=gjd@NRC.GOV 

	      href="mailto:gjd@NRC.GOV";>gjd@NRC.GOV</A> ; <A

title=siegelja@AOL.COM 

	      href="mailto:siegelja@AOL.COM";>siegelja@AOL.COM</A> ; <A 

	      title=CJP1@NRC.GOV href="mailto:CJP1@NRC.GOV";>CJP1@NRC.GOV</A>

; <A 

	      title=rwb@NRC.GOV href="mailto:rwb@NRC.GOV";>rwb@NRC.GOV</A> ;

<A 

	      title=REZ@NRC.GOV href="mailto:REZ@NRC.GOV";>REZ@NRC.GOV</A>

</DIV>

	      <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 16,

2003 10:06 

	      AM</DIV>

	      <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: NRC PROPOSES

$6,000 FINE 

	      AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL IN MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE

TO A MEMBER 

	      OF THE PUBLIC</DIV>

	      <DIV><BR></DIV>

	      <DIV>For clarification, the report can be found at <A 

	

href="http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/mate

rials/ea02248.html">http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcemen

t/actions/materials/ea02248.html</A></DIV>

	      <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

	      <DIV>With regard to exposure rate values, these are in the

report:0</DIV>

	      <DIV>

	      <TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=1 width="100%">

	        <TBODY>

	        <TR vAlign=top>

	          <TD><FONT size=2>B.&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></TD>

	          <TD><FONT size=2>10 CFR 20.1301(a)(2) requires that each

licensee 

	            conduct operations so that the dose in any unrestricted

area from 

	            external sources, with exceptions not applicable here,

does not 

	            exceed 2 millirem in any one hour.<BR><BR>Contrary to

the above, the 

	            licensee conducted operations so that the dose in

unrestricted areas 

	            exceeded 2 millirem in any one hour. Specifically,

licensee 

	            operations on July 1, 2002, resulted in a dose of 10

millirem in one 

	            hour in an emergency exit stairway, and a dose of

17millirem in one 

	            hour outside the ground floor window of a patient's

room. Licensee 

	            operations continued through July 7, 2002, when the

resultant doses 

	            were 4 millirem in one hour and 8 millirem in one hour, 

	            respectively.

<BR><BR></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>

	      <P>It should be noted that these values are outside of the

patents 

	      room.&nbsp; I assume next to the bed the dose rates would be

significantly 

	      higher.&nbsp; </P>

	      <P>Also, NCRP 37 provides recommendations.&nbsp; The NRC

grants a license 

	      under which the&nbsp; licensee agrees to operate.&nbsp; You

cannot pick 

	      the regulations you like to follow.</P>

	      <P><BR><B><I>Carol Marcus &lt;csmarcus@ucla.edu&gt;</I></B>

wrote:</P>

	      <BLOCKQUOTE 

	      style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT:

#1010ff 2px solid">. 

	        . .<BR><BR>So, where does 3 to 15 rem come from? Nowhere

credible.&nbsp; 

	        As I see it, the member of the family elected to get a

radiation dose 

	        that is judged safe for radiation workers, in order to be

with a dying 

	        relative.&nbsp; Seems reasonable to me.<BR><BR>It may be

reasonable to 

	        point out that 10 CFR Part 20 includes the last sentence of 

	        20.1001:&nbsp; "However, nothing in this part shall be

construed as 

	        limiting actions that may be necessary to protect health and



	        safety."&nbsp; I would sincerely argue that the mental

health of the 

	        member of the family comes under this clause, and that the

standards 

	        need not apply.&nbsp; The care and peace of mind of the

dying patient 

	        should be considered as well.&nbsp; While I would go to

great lengths to 

	        prevent a member of the family from receiving a dose that I

know to be 

	        harmful, I don't see any reason to become hysterical about a

dose that 

	        is a! bout what a radiation worker may receive in a year, or



	        significantly less.&nbsp; In NCRP no. 37, it is recommended

that family 

	        members over 45 not receive more than 5 rads from the

patient.&nbsp; I 

	        don't know how old the family member in question was, but

clearly there 

	        are standards that would support much higher radiation doses

than the 

	        NRC seems prepared to permit in extreme 

	      circumstances.<BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>--

John<BR>John 

	      Jacobus, MS<BR>Certified Health Physicist<BR>e-mail:

crispy_bird@yahoo.com 



	      <P>

	      <HR SIZE=1>

	      Do you Yahoo!?<BR><A 

	

href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com";>The 

	      New Yahoo! Search</A> - Faster. Easier. 

	Bingo.</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>



	- --Boundary_(ID_/CafwZ4GJ94zwZla+GXzvQ)--

	

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

	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:31:56 +0200

	From: "Frikkie Beeslaar" <beeslar@sabs.co.za>

	Subject: UD802 and dose from AmBe



	Dear radsafers



	We have some radiation workers that work with gauges that contain

	either just an AmBe source or AmBe/Cs sources.   They can thus be

	exposed to either the gammas from the Cs or to the gamma/neutrons

from

	the AmBe.  



	I have noticed some readings that did not coincide with the typical

	UD802 fingerprint readings for an AmBe source.   As expected,

element 1

	and 2 (LiBo) registered high readings, but Element 3 and 4 (CaSO)

was

	almost zero.  From this it looks like just neutrons that were

measured

	since there was no reading from E3 and E4 (which is insensitive to

	neutrons).  

	How can it be possible to only see the neutron and not the gamma

from

	the Am?

	Could it be the design of the gauge that filters out all the gammas?



	Thanks for the help







	Frik Beeslaar

	Medical Physicist

	Radiation Protection Service (SABS)

	e-mail: BEESLAR@SABS.CO.ZA



	Tel:   027-12-428 6882

	Fax::  027-12-428 6685

	Cell:   082 829 9613



	Private bag X191

	Pretoria

	0001

	South Africa

	

________________________________________________________________________

	This email has been scanned for virusses by SOPHOS Anti-virus

scanner.

	

________________________________________________________________________

	DISCLAIMER

	

________________________________________________________________________

	The South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) hereby distances itself

	from and accepts no liability in respect of the unauthorised use of

	its e-mail facility or the sending of e-mail communications for

other

	than strictly business purposes.

	SABS furthermore disclaims liability for any unauthorised

instruction

	for which permission was not granted and any opinions or

recommendations

	expressed herein are those solely of the author.

	Any recipient of an unacceptable communication, a chain letter or 

	offensive material of any nature is requested to report it to 

	helpdesk@sabs.co.za

	"DISCLAIMER"

	

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

	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:25:10 +0000

	From: "Bjorn Cedervall" <bcradsafers@HOTMAIL.COM>

	Subject: Re: DU in Iraq



	>75 tons of depleted uranium peppering the countryside of Iraq is a

small 

	>price to pay for avoided sorrow and grief of the families of these

brave 

	>and noble patriots. I most certainly don't want to be the first on

my block 

	>to see my son come home in a box or have to go to Washington, D.C.,

to 

	>touch his name on a wall because he never came home.



	>What is our fascination with something that may hypothetically kill

us at 

	>some distant point in the future rather than the real hazards that

will 

	>kill you right now?



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

	I basically agree about the perspective above. The main point about 

	calculating the 75 tons/600,000 tons is to have a clear number for

those who 

	choose that"amount-line-of-argument" (about the distant future etc)

- to 

	simply have a number to give them. The risk communication is very

different 

	depending on who is communicating with whom. Take the following

parts of a 

	stake holder situation:



	Engineer, scientist, journalist, worried general public, lawyers, 

	administrator/regulator, politician, anti-everything activist. Now

combine 

	(I get 20 basic combinations):



	Engineer-scientist

	Engineer-journalist

	Journalist-politician and so on.



	Then add that we communicate in two directions and with logic vs.

emotions. 

	This gives us 80 combinations. We hopefully expect that the 

	engineer-scientist use logic/fact based reasoning in both

directions. The 

	scientist (S) talking with a journalist (J) may result in 1:

S(logic)->J,  

	2:J(emotional)->S

	and so on.



	Depending on the character of the risk communication we need to see 

	arguments, numbers and so on from many different sides. Being aware

of the 

	complexity we may be able to choose a good strategy for risk

communication. 

	If someone has seen a scary (totally unrealistic) movie about

radioactivity 

	and is worried about it and one responds with some numbers there may

be no 

	real communication. Some people may buy the 75/600,000 argument (I

would 

	question relevance in terms of exposure), others may just want to

hear an 

	answer to "would you be afraid of visiting Iraq because of the 75

tons of 

	(extra) uranium there?".



	The risk communication challenge (about radiation) is always there 

	regardless of what we think about it.



	My personal ideas only,



	Bjorn Cedervall   bcradsafers@hotmail.com



	_________________________________________________________________

	STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  

	http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



	

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

	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 07:22:08 -0400

	From: William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>

	Subject: Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY

HOSPITAL INMICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC



	I suggest that you read the full inspection report (Inspection

Report No. 030-1997/2002001(DNMS)), that is referenced in the NOV.

	It is available on ADAMS.  The hospital did appeal the violation.

The letter of appeal is attached to the inspection report. In

	that letter, the hospital places virtually all of the blame on the

RSO.  Here are some quotes:  "The former RSO's failure to

	promptly investigate and take corrective action was quickly

corrected by management..."   "It is also significant that the former

	RSO's failure to immediately investigate and take corrective action

did not result in any harm to the pubic or the the NRC..."



	Two things to note:  (1) It's the former RSO.  Any hospital RSO out

there who is thinking about being  "compassionate" by violating

	regulations should keep in mind that your employer may choose not to

support your decision, especially if they receive a NOV.  (2)

	I'm not sure what the hospital means by "...harm ... to the NRC..."



	The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

	It's not about dose, it's about trust.

	Curies forever.



	Bill Lipton

	liptonw@dteenergy.com







	Sandy Perle wrote:



	> On 19 May 2003 at 6:30, Knapp, Steven J. wrote:

	>

	> > The questions still remains, how much control over the patient

and family is required before the NRC determines the control is

	> > adequate?

	>

	> Steve,

	>

	> Your question can't be answered, even by the NRC, in that there is

	> subjectivity even amongst inspectors (can this really be)!

	>

	> Ever licensee must remember that they can always appeal any NOV

and

	> fine, to the Region, and, ultimately, can raise the issue all the

way

	> up to HQ, and even beyond that, by going to the General Counsel.

They

	> should only do this where they firmly believe that they were

treated

	> unfairly. However, if I recall, the facility did take full

	> responsibility for this, and, the only areas for complaint have

come

	> from this and the MedPhysics listservers. The hospital didn't

appear

	> to take issue.

	>

	> The discussion is good, since it involves regulations, personal

	> issues, risk issues and health issues.

	>

	> But there is no answer to your question directly.

	> -------------------------------------------------

	> Sandy Perle

	> Director, Technical

	> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Service

	> ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue

	> Costa Mesa, CA 92626

	>

	> Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100  Extension 2306

	> Fax:(714) 668-3149

	>

	> E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net

	> E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com

	>

	> Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/

	> 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.

	> You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/





	

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

	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:00:31 -0400

	From: "Falo, Gerald A Dr HMJF" <Gerald.Falo@APG.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>

	Subject: RE: 33P/166Ho Skin Dose Factors 



	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_01C31EC7.695D6740

	Content-Type: text/plain;

		charset="iso-8859-1"



	Ted,

	 

	According to "The Radionuclide and Radiation Protection Data

Handbook 1998"

	the skin doses from P-33 are 8.6E-1 mSv/h per 1 kBq/cm2 for a

uniform

	deposit and 1.4E-1 mSv/h for a 0.05 ml droplet (1 kBq). Ho-166 isn't

in the

	text; however,  I believe there is a second edition of the book that

may

	have it. The handbook was released as Radiation Protection Dosimetry

V76,

	Nos. 1 and 2.

	 

	Sorry that I don't have the Ho-166 numbers for you.

	 

	Jerry

	 

	How beautiful it is to do nothing, and then rest afterwards. -

Spanish

	proverb 



	The statements herein are entirely the fault of the author and in no

way

	should be interpreted as official statements of any person or

organization

	unless otherwise noted.



	Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP 

	Henry M Jackson Foundation Professional Associate 

	United States Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive

Medicine 

	Health Physics Program 

	gerald.falo@apg.amedd.army.mil 





	- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C31EC7.695D6740

	Content-Type: text/html;

		charset="iso-8859-1"



	<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

	<HTML><HEAD>

	<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html;

charset=iso-8859-1">





	<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>

	<BODY>

	<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 

	size=2>Ted,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>

	<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 

	size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>

	<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 

	size=2>According to "The Radionuclide and Radiation Protection Data

Handbook 

	1998" the skin doses from P-33 are 8.6E-1 mSv/h per 1 kBq/cm2 for a

uniform 

	deposit and 1.4E-1 mSv/h for a 0.05 ml droplet (1 kBq). Ho-166 isn't

in the 

	text; however,&nbsp; I believe there is a second edition of the book

that may 

	have it. The handbook was&nbsp;released as Radiation Protection

Dosimetry V76, 

	Nos. 1 and 2.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>

	<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 

	size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>

	<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff

size=2>Sorry 

	that I don't have the Ho-166 numbers for you.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>

	<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 

	size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>

	<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 

	size=2>Jerry</FONT></SPAN></DIV>

	<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><B><I><FONT face="Comic Sans MS"



	size=2></FONT></I></B></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>

	<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><B><I><FONT face="Comic Sans MS"

size=2>How 

	beautiful it is to do nothing, and then rest afterwards. - Spanish 

	proverb</FONT></I></B> </DIV>

	<DIV>

	<P><B><I><FONT face=Arial size=2>The statements herein are entirely

the fault of 

	the author and in no way should be interpreted as official

statements of any 

	person or organization unless otherwise noted.</FONT></I></B></P>

	<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2>Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D.,

CHP</FONT> 

	<BR><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2>Henry M Jackson Foundation

Professional 

	Associate</FONT> <BR><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2>United

States Army 

	Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine</FONT> <BR><FONT



	face="Times New Roman" size=2>Health Physics Program</FONT>

<BR><FONT 

	face="Times New Roman" size=2>gerald.falo@apg.amedd.army.mil</FONT> 

	</SPAN></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>



	- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C31EC7.695D6740--

	

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

	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:56:51 -0400

	From: "Claude Laney" <cflaney@BELLSOUTH.NET>

	Subject: Questions on NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109



	This is a multi-part message in MIME format.



	- ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C31EAD.C0F89D40

	Content-Type: text/plain;

		charset="iso-8859-1"

	Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



	NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, Calculation of Doses to Man From Routine

=

	Releases of Reactor Effluents For the Purpose of Evaluating

Compliance =

	with 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, indicates in the introduction that =

	Regulatory Guide 1.109 contains methods that may be used for =

	demonstrating compliance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50, Appendix

I.



	 Question:  Are the methods contained in Regulatory Guide 1.109

still in =

	use by commercial nuclear power facilities for the purpose of =

	demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix I?



	=20



	Comment:  Regulatory Guide 1.109, Appendix E, item (3.) indicates

that =

	the dose factors for the total body contained in Table E-6 are for

the =

	dose rate in air at 1 meter above the ground for a tissue depth of 5

cm. =

	 The 5 cm tissue depth may be converted to a density thickness of

5000 =

	mg per square cm, assuming a tissue density of 1000 mg per cubic cm.

10 =

	CFR 50.2, Definitions, contains the definitions of the committed

dose =

	equivalent, committed effective dose equivalent, and the deep dose =

	equivalent (DDE) with the DDE defined at a tissue depth of 1000 mg

per =

	square cm.  10 CFR 20 references the same tissue depth (1000 mg per

=

	square cm) in the definition of the DDE.



	 Question:  How do the dose factors for the total body contained in

=

	Regulatory Guide 1.109, Appendix E, Table E-6 demonstrate compliance

=

	with the 10 CFR 50 Appendix I limits, and the dose limits for

members of =

	the public contained in 10 CFR 20.1301, if the tissue depths differ

by a =

	factor of 5 (i.e., 1000 mg per square cm compared to 5000 mg per

square =

	cm)?



	=20



	Thanks for any comments.





	- ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C31EAD.C0F89D40

	Content-Type: text/html;

		charset="iso-8859-1"

	Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



	<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

	<HTML><HEAD>

	<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =

	charset=3Diso-8859-1">

	<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>

	<STYLE></STYLE>

	</HEAD>

	<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>

	<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT>

	<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN=20

	style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt">NRC Regulatory

=

	Guide 1.109,=20

	<I>Calculation of Doses to Man From Routine Releases of Reactor =

	Effluents For=20

	the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix I</I>,

=

	indicates=20

	in the introduction that Regulatory Guide 1.109 contains methods

that =

	may be=20

	used for demonstrating compliance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50,

=

	Appendix=20

	I.<?xml:namespace prefix =3D o ns =3D =

	"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"=20

	/><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>

	<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN=20

	style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: =

	10.0pt"><STRONG>&nbsp;</STRONG></SPAN><SPAN=20

	style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: =

	10.0pt"><STRONG>Question:</STRONG><SPAN=20

	style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Are the methods contained

in =

	Regulatory=20

	Guide 1.109 still in use by commercial nuclear power facilities for

the =

	purpose=20

	of demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix =

	I?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>

	<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN=20

	style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: =

	10.0pt">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>

	<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN=20

	style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: =

	10.0pt"><STRONG>Comment:</STRONG><SPAN=20

	style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Regulatory Guide 1.109, =

	Appendix E, item=20

	(3.) indicates that the dose factors for the total body contained in

=

	Table E-6=20

	are for the dose rate in air at 1 meter above the ground for a

tissue =

	depth of 5=20

	cm.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>The 5 cm tissue

depth =

	may be=20

	converted to a density thickness of 5000 mg per square cm, assuming

a =

	tissue=20

	density of 1000 mg per cubic cm.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun:

yes">&nbsp; =

	</SPAN>10=20

	CFR 50.2, <I>Definitions</I>, contains the definitions of the

committed =

	dose=20

	equivalent, committed effective dose equivalent, and the deep dose =

	equivalent=20

	(DDE) with the DDE defined at a tissue depth of 1000 mg per square =

	cm.<SPAN=20

	style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>10 CFR 20 references the

same =

	tissue=20

	depth (1000 mg per square cm) in the definition of the=20

	DDE.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>

	<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN=20

	style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size:

10.0pt">&nbsp;</SPAN><SPAN =



	style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: =

	10.0pt"><STRONG>Question:</STRONG><SPAN=20

	style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>How do the dose factors

for =

	the total=20

	body contained in Regulatory Guide 1.109, Appendix E, Table E-6 =

	demonstrate=20

	compliance with the 10 CFR 50 Appendix I limits, and the dose limits

for =

	members=20

	of the public contained in 10 CFR 20.1301, if the tissue depths

differ =

	by a=20

	factor of 5 (i.e., 1000 mg per square cm compared to 5000 mg per

square=20

	cm)?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>

	<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN=20

	style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: =

	10.0pt">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>

	<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN=20

	style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt">Thanks for

any=20

	comments.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>



	- ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C31EAD.C0F89D40--



	

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

	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:36:28 -0400

	From: "Hart, Tim P GS (RASO)" <harttp@RASO.NAVY.MIL>

	Subject: Consider the following



	A stranger was seated next to Little Tommy on the 



	plane when the stranger turned to the boy and said, "Let's talk. 



	I've heard that flights will go quicker if you strike up a 



	conversation with your fellow passenger." 



	Little Tommy, who had just opened his book, closed it slowly, and 



	said to the stranger, "What would you like to discuss?" 

	"Oh, I don't know," said the stranger. "How about nuclear power?" 



	"OK," said Little Tommy. "That could be an interesting topic. But 



	let me ask you a question first. "A horse, a cow, and a deer all 



	eat grass. The same stuff. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while





	a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried 



	grass. Why do you suppose that is?" 



	"Jeez," said the stranger. "I have no idea." 



	"Well, then," said Little Tommy, "How is it that you feel qualified 



	to discuss nuclear power when you don't know shit?"





	Tim Hart

	Radiation Protection Manager

	NAVSEADET RASO

	NWS P.O. Drawer 260

	Yorktown, VA 23691-0260



	Commercial: (757) 887-4692

	DSN:  953-4692

	Fax:  (757) 887-3235



	"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him

	absolutely no good." - Samuel Johnson 







	

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

	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:46:30 EDT

	From: BLHamrick@AOL.COM

	Subject: Re: Risks and their avoidance



	- --part1_195.1a828902.2bfb8bb6_boundary

	Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

	Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



	In a message dated 5/19/2003 10:51:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, 

	lists@richardhess.com writes:



	> How can we get society to take responsibility on a personal level?

In 

	> California we have a warning almost every where (I think it's Prop

65, 

	> Barbara?) that says "this business uses stuff that is known to the

state of 

	> 

	> California as a carcinogen" or something equally scary. So, I mean

this is 

	> on my parking garage at the office. What do I do? Not park? Walk

to work 

	> and inhale the same stuff on the street? Puleeze!

	> 



	Yes, it is Prop. 65, and this is one of the big problems we have, as

a 

	society, in addressing risks.  We had all these businesses put up

these 

	signs, but since they are literally EVERYWHERE, they mean nothing.

People 

	don't even see them anymore, because you literally can't go anywhere

that 

	there's not one.  They're even on our hotels for cryin' out loud.



	While I think we can reduce our risks of an untoward death, we first

must all 

	realize that one day, like it or not, we will with certainty become

a 

	"statistic."  Once we really grasp that, we can better balance

quality of 

	life issues against the fact that we know the quantity is surely

limited.



	Barbara



	- --part1_195.1a828902.2bfb8bb6_boundary

	Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

	Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



	<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3D2

FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=

	=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 5/19/2003 10:51:39 PM

Pacific Stand=

	ard Time, lists@richardhess.com writes:<BR>

	<BR>

	<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid;

MARGIN-LEFT=

	: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">How can we get society

to take=20=

	responsibility on a personal level? In <BR>

	California we have a warning almost every where (I think it's Prop

65, <BR>

	Barbara?) that says "this business uses stuff that is known to the

state of=20=

	<BR>

	California as a carcinogen" or something equally scary. So, I mean

this is <=

	BR>

	on my parking garage at the office. What do I do? Not park? Walk to

work <BR=

	>

	and inhale the same stuff on the street? Puleeze!<BR>

	</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

	<BR>

	Yes, it is Prop. 65, and this is one of the big problems we have, as

a socie=

	ty, in addressing risks.&nbsp; We had all these businesses put up

these sign=

	s, but since they are literally EVERYWHERE, they mean nothing.&nbsp;

People=20=

	don't even see them anymore, because you literally can't go anywhere

that th=

	ere's not one.&nbsp; They're even on our hotels for cryin' out

loud.<BR>

	<BR>

	While I think we can reduce our risks of an untoward death, we first

must al=

	l realize that one day, like it or not, we will with certainty

become a "sta=

	tistic."&nbsp; Once we really grasp that, we can better balance

quality of l=

	ife issues against the fact that we know the quantity is surely

limited.<BR>

	<BR>

	Barbara</FONT></HTML>



	- --part1_195.1a828902.2bfb8bb6_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.

	You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:52:57 -0400

	From: "Ansari, Armin" <asa4@cdc.gov>

	Subject: Re: DU in Iraq - relevant comparisons



	Dear colleagues:



	Calculating the mass of natural uranium in the top one meter layer

of soil

	in Iraq or any where else (even our own backyard) is interesting and

very

	useful for communicating the presence of radioactive materials in

our

	natural world.  However, this is not a useful approach in

communicating the

	low risk associated with the presence of however many tons of DU

ammunition

	in the environment.  This could be relevant only if all DU were

	homogeneously distributed over the entire country to a depth of one

meter.



	Let's consider this analogy: the top 1 centimeter layer of soil in

this

	beautiful country contains approximately 15,000 Ci of Cs-137

(someone please

	check my math).  If one Ci of Cs-137 is spilled or scattered, we

would not

	discount it just because it is only 0.00007 fraction of what is

already

	present in the top 1 cm of soil.  Relevant comparisons would be

	concentrations and exposure rates.



	Best regards,

	Armin





	___________________________________

	Armin Ansari, Ph.D., CHP

	Radiation Studies Branch, EHHE, NCEH

	Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

	1600 Clifton Rd, NE (MS-E39) 

	Atlanta, GA 30333



	Ph: 404.498.1837 Fax: 404.498.1811

	AAnsari@cdc.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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 07:02:59 -0700 (PDT)

	From: Zack Clayton <zclayton@YAHOO.COM>

	Subject: Not being a statistic



	I would just like to correct a common mental slip that most of us

make.

	 We are all "statstics"  I  am fortunately in the 99.44% group that

	hasn't had anything go wrong with me.  I want to stay out of that

0.56%

	group that has more cavities than theirs - which is the  group

called

	in our verbal shorthand "the statistics".



	(99.44% was a common advertising slogan for a face soap.  The cavity

	reference is to ads for a brand of toothpaste, and your results may

	vary. Professional driver on a closed course.  Do not attempt this

at

	home.) 



	Zack Clayton

	Health Physicist

	Columbus, Ohio.



	__________________________________

	Do you Yahoo!?

	The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

	http://search.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.

	You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:25:49 -0600

	From: "Michael C. Baker" <mcbaker@LANL.GOV>

	Subject: Re: AW: [Fwd: [Know_Nukes] (NYT) Navajo Miners Battle a

Deadly   Legacy of Yell...



	 From http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/hu2002/techprogram/paper_46652.htm



	New Mexico ranks 2nd in uranium reserves in the U. S., which amounts



	to 15 million tons ore at 0.277% U 3O8(84 million lbs U 3O8) at 

	$30/lb (Energy Information Administration, 2000). The most important



	uranium deposit in the state is sandstone within the Morrison 

	Formation (Jurassic) in the Grants and Shiprock uranium districts, 

	San Juan Basin. More than 340 million lbs of U 3O8have been produced



	from these uranium deposits from 1948 through 2000, accounting for 

	97% of the total uranium production in New Mexico and more than 30% 

	of the total uranium production in the United States. Only one 

	company in New Mexico, Quivira Mining Co. owned by Rio Algom Ltd. 

	(successor to Kerr McGee Corporation), produced uranium in 1984-2000



	from waters recovered from inactive underground operations at 

	Ambrosia Lake, Grants (mine-water recovery). Hydro Resources Inc.

has 

	put its plans on hold to mine uranium by in-situ leaching at 

	Churchrock until the uranium price increases. Reserves at Churchrock



	are estimated as 15 million pounds of U 3O8. NZU Inc. also is 

	planning to mine at Crownpoint by in-situ leaching. Rio Grande 

	Resources Co. is maintaining the closed facilities at the flooded

Mt. 

	Taylor underground mine, in Cibola County.  In late 1997, Anaconda 

	Uranium acquired the La Jara Mesa uranium deposit in Cibola County 

	from Homestake Mining Co. The sandstone uranium deposit was 

	discovered in the late 1980s in the Morrison Formation and contains 

	approximately 8 million pounds of 0.25% U 3O8. Future development of



	these reserves and resources will depend upon an increase in price 

	for uranium and the lowering of production costs, perhaps by in-situ



	leaching techniques.



	For information on uranium mining in New Mexico.



	http://www.grants.org/mining/mining.htm





	Mike









	>May 19, 2003

	>Davis, CA

	>

	>If my memory serves me right, there was a uranium ore processing

mill near

	>Grants, NM, in the 1960's. Does anyone else remember a uranium mill

in New

	>Mexico?

	>

	>Otto

	>





	

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

	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:36:32 -0400

	From: "Richard F. Orthen" <rorthen@EARTHSCIENCES.NET>

	Subject: RE: Risks and their avoidance



	This is a multi-part message in MIME format.



	- ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C31EBB.ADFD92A0

	Content-Type: text/plain;

		charset="iso-8859-1"

	Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



	But while measures like Proposition 65 have little to do with

effectively

	safeguarding human welfare (except in those cases where a legal

monetary

	award is provided due to lack of signage), I am convinced they have

	everything to do with isolating corporations from product

use/exposure

	liability.  We shouldn't be so naive so as to believe that "life as

we know

	it" has been produced in a legal vacuum.  I rarely, if ever,

interpret such

	signage as being a statement of human health risk, and apparently

I'm in

	considerable company.



	Rick Orthen

	  -----Original Message-----

	  From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

	[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of

BLHamrick@AOL.COM

	  Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:47 AM

	  To: lists@richardhess.com; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

	  Subject: Re: Risks and their avoidance





	  In a message dated 5/19/2003 10:51:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,

	lists@richardhess.com writes:





	    How can we get society to take responsibility on a personal

level? In

	    California we have a warning almost every where (I think it's

Prop 65,

	    Barbara?) that says "this business uses stuff that is known to

the state

	of

	    California as a carcinogen" or something equally scary. So, I

mean this

	is

	    on my parking garage at the office. What do I do? Not park? Walk

to work

	    and inhale the same stuff on the street? Puleeze!







	  Yes, it is Prop. 65, and this is one of the big problems we have,

as a

	society, in addressing risks.  We had all these businesses put up

these

	signs, but since they are literally EVERYWHERE, they mean nothing.

People

	don't even see them anymore, because you literally can't go anywhere

that

	there's not one.  They're even on our hotels for cryin' out loud.



	  While I think we can reduce our risks of an untoward death, we

first must

	all realize that one day, like it or not, we will with certainty

become a

	"statistic."  Once we really grasp that, we can better balance

quality of

	life issues against the fact that we know the quantity is surely

limited.



	  Barbara



	- ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C31EBB.ADFD92A0

	Content-Type: text/html;

		charset="iso-8859-1"

	Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



	<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

	<HTML><HEAD>

	<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =

	charset=3Dwindows-1252">

	<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>

	<BODY>

	<DIV><FONT face=3DEuroRoman color=3D#0000ff><SPAN =

	class=3D620542114-20052003>But while=20

	measures like Proposition 65 have little to do with effectively =

	safeguarding=20

	human welfare (except in those cases where a legal monetary award is

=

	provided=20

	due to lack of signage), I am convinced they have everything to do

with=20

	isolating corporations from product

use/exposure&nbsp;liability.&nbsp; =

	We=20

	shouldn't be so naive so as to believe that "life as we know =

	it"&nbsp;has been=20

	produced in a legal vacuum.&nbsp; I rarely, if ever, interpret such

=

	signage as=20

	being a statement of human health risk, and apparently I'm in =

	considerable=20

	company.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>

	<DIV><FONT face=3DEuroRoman color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20

	class=3D620542114-20052003></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>

	<DIV><FONT face=3DEuroRoman color=3D#0000ff><SPAN =

	class=3D620542114-20052003>Rick=20

	Orthen</SPAN></FONT></DIV>

	<BLOCKQUOTE>

	  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader><FONT face=3D"Times New

Roman"=20

	  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20

	  owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu=20

	  [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]<B>On Behalf Of</B>=20

	  BLHamrick@AOL.COM<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:47 =

	AM<BR><B>To:</B>=20

	  lists@richardhess.com;

radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> =

	Re:=20

	  Risks and their avoidance<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT =

	face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT=20

	  lang=3D0 face=3DArial size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF">In a message

dated =

	5/19/2003=20

	  10:51:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, lists@richardhess.com =

	writes:<BR><BR>

	  <BLOCKQUOTE=20

	  style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff

2px =

	solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"=20

	  TYPE=3D"CITE">How can we get society to take responsibility on a =

	personal=20

	    level? In <BR>California we have a warning almost every where (I

=

	think it's=20

	    Prop 65, <BR>Barbara?) that says "this business uses stuff that

is =

	known to=20

	    the state of <BR>California as a carcinogen" or something

equally =

	scary. So,=20

	    I mean this is <BR>on my parking garage at the office. What do I

do? =

	Not=20

	    park? Walk to work <BR>and inhale the same stuff on the

street?=20

	  Puleeze!<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Yes, it is Prop. 65, and this is

one =

	of the=20

	  big problems we have, as a society, in addressing risks.&nbsp; We

had =

	all=20

	  these businesses put up these signs, but since they are literally

=

	EVERYWHERE,=20

	  they mean nothing.&nbsp; People don't even see them anymore,

because =

	you=20

	  literally can't go anywhere that there's not one.&nbsp; They're

even =

	on our=20

	  hotels for cryin' out loud.<BR><BR>While I think we can reduce our

=

	risks of an=20

	  untoward death, we first must all realize that one day, like it or

=

	not, we=20

	  will with certainty become a "statistic."&nbsp; Once we really

grasp =

	that, we=20

	  can better balance quality of life issues against the fact that we

=

	know the=20

	  quantity is surely limited.<BR><BR>Barbara</FONT>=20

	</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>



	- ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C31EBB.ADFD92A0--



	

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

	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:58:52 -0400 (EDT)

	From: BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU>

	Subject: Re: AW: [Fwd: [Know_Nukes] (NYT) Navajo Miners Battle a

Deadly Legacy of Yell...



	On Mon, 19 May 2003, Otto G. Raabe wrote:

	>

	> If my memory serves me right, there was a uranium ore processing

mill near

	> Grants, NM, in the 1960's. Does anyone else remember a uranium

mill in New

	> Mexico?

	k

		--I visited an ore processing mill near Grants, NM in the

1980s.

	It is my understanding that it is normal to have an ore processing

mill

	near mines because the vast majority of the material mined is not

uranium

	(in NM, much less than 1%), so transportation is minimized if the

uranium

	is separated out nearby. The mills produce yellow cake. U3 O8, which

costs

	about $10 per pound, so it is economical to send it to plants far

away for

	conversion to U F6 which is used in isotope separation.



	

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

	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:30:12 -0700 (PDT)

	From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>

	Subject: Re: Tooth fairy inspired law suit



	- --0-1542481523-1053444612=:49320

	Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii



	I am always fascinated when you have a cancer cluster of one person.

Where are the others to do an epidemiological study?  I bet the highway

death rates linked to Sr-90 is much higher.



	"Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU> wrote:At 09:48 AM 5/17/03

-0600, Doty, Patrick wrote:

	Below is a link to a story posted today on the TCPalm Web site,

"Suit

	>alleges cancer link to nuclear plant". 

	HERE IS THE WHOLE ARTICLE FROM THE "Fort Pierce Tribune" newspaper

WITH THE

	AUTHOR'S E-MAIL ADDRESS!



	Suit alleges cancer link to nuclear plant



	Boy, 13, died of the disease in 2001 and the family blames Florida

Power &

	Light (FPL)



	By Mark Pollio staff writer

	May 16, 2003



	ST. LUCIE COUNTY -- The family of a 13-year-old cancer victim filed

a

	federal lawsuit last week against Florida Power & Light Co.,

claiming

	nuclear power plant emissions contributed to their child's cancer.

	. . .





	- -- John

	John Jacobus, MS

	Certified Health Physicist

	e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



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

	Do you Yahoo!?

	The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

	- --0-1542481523-1053444612=:49320

	Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii



	<DIV>I am always fascinated when you have a cancer cluster of one

person.&nbsp; Where are the others to do an epidemiological study?&nbsp; I

bet the highway death rates linked to Sr-90 is much

higher.<BR><BR><B><I>"Otto G. Raabe" &lt;ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU&gt;</I></B>

wrote:

	<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;

PADDING-LEFT: 5px">At 09:48 AM 5/17/03 -0600, Doty, Patrick wrote:<BR>Below

is a link to a story posted today on the TCPalm Web site,

"Suit<BR>&gt;alleges cancer link to nuclear plant". <BR>HERE IS THE WHOLE

ARTICLE FROM THE "Fort Pierce Tribune" newspaper WITH THE<BR>AUTHOR'S E-MAIL

ADDRESS!<BR><BR>Suit alleges cancer link to nuclear plant<BR><BR>Boy, 13,

died of the disease in 2001 and the family blames Florida Power

&amp;<BR>Light (FPL)<BR><BR>By Mark Pollio staff writer<BR>May 16,

2003<BR><BR>ST. LUCIE COUNTY -- The family of a 13-year-old cancer victim

filed a<BR>federal lawsuit last week against Florida Power &amp; Light Co.,

claiming<BR>nuclear power plant emissions contributed to their child's

cancer.<BR>. . .</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR>-- John<br>John Jacobus,

MS<br>Certified Health Physicist<br>e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com<p><hr

SIZE=1>

	Do you Yahoo!?<br>

	<a

href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com";>The

New Yahoo! Search</a> - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

	- --0-1542481523-1053444612=:49320--

	

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

	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 11:48:26 -0400

	From: William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>

	Subject: radiography - deja vu all over again



	Please see the attached item from the March 20, 2003, NRC Daily

Event

	Report.  Here's another preventable radiography incident.



	my usual question:  When is the NRC going to start taking

radiography

	seriously?



	Also, some key information seems to be missing from the report.  The

	sequence of events seems to be:  (1) source exposed for shot, (2)

	radiographer leaves work area prior to cranking back source, (3)

	radiographer returns, changes film,and moves guide tube with source

	still exposed.  The report then states, "At this point, he realized

that

	his survey meter had pegged high, and remembered that he had not

cranked

	the source back in prior to moving it..."



	Assuming that TX regulations are similar to NRC regulations,

consider 10

	CFR 34.47(a):  "The licensee may not permit any individual to act as

a

	radiographer or a radiographer's assistant unless, at all times

during

	radiographic operations, each individual wears, on the trunk of the

	body, ... an operating alarm ratemeter..."



	I think it's just this scenario that the regulators had in mind when

	they required an alarm ratemeter.  Where was it?



	BTW, they were very lucky that the source had decayed down to 26 Ci.

If

	I remember correctly, a fresh source is 80 - 100 Ci, which probably

	would have caused an overexposure.



	The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

	It's not about dose, it's about trust.

	Curies forever.



	Bill Lipton

	liptonw@dteenergy.com









	AGREEMENT STATE

	REPORT                                                       |

	|

	|

	| The licensee reported a potential overexposure to a radiographer

who

	was     |

	| x-raying some pipes at a worksite.  After completing a section of

	piping,    |

	| the radiographer should have cranked his source back in, but was

	interrupted |

	| by another technician and left his work area.  When he returned,

	the         |

	| radiographer changed out his film, and moved the guide tube to

	another       |

	| section of piping to begin more x-rays.  At this point, he

realized

	that his |

	| survey meter had pegged high, and remembered that he had not

cranked

	the     |

	| source back in prior to moving it.  He proceeded to immediately

crank

	the    |

	| source back to its fully shielded position.  The exact time and

	distance     |

	| from the source for the radiographer's exposure is unknown, and

the

	licensee |

	| is attempting to re-create the

	scenario.                                     |

	|

	|

	| The source was 26 Curies of Iridium 192, model number INC-32.  The

	serial    |

	| number is unknown at this time.  A preliminary investigation by

the

	licensee |

	| estimates the radiographer's exposure to 800-900 millirem whole

body.

	There |

	| is currently no exposure estimate for his

	hands/extremities.                 |

	|

	|

	| The radiographer's badge was sent off for processing.  Results

will

	be       |

	| reported on 5/16/03 to the NRC.  The Texas Department of Health is

	sending   |

	| an additional inspector to the site to

	investigate.                          |

	|

	|

	|

	|

	| * * * UPDATE ON 5/16/03  @ 1120 BY  WATKINS TO GOULD * *

	*                   |

	|

	|

	| Blazer Industrial Radiography brought in a consultant to perform

	preliminary |

	| dose calculations for the whole body and the right hand of the

	radiographer. |

	| The results were 1.3R for the whole body and 37.1R for the right

	hand,       |

	| neither of which exceeds the annual regulatory

	limit.                        |

	

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---+











	

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

	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 11:50:22 EDT

	From: BobCherry@AOL.COM

	Subject: Re: Risks and their avoidance



	- --part1_bf.31dbf9b2.2bfba8be_boundary

	Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

	Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



	In a message dated 5/20/2003 8:48:25 AM Central Daylight Time, 

	BLHamrick@AOL.COM writes:



	> While I think we can reduce our risks of an untoward death, we

first must 

	> all realize that one day, like it or not, we will with certainty

become a 

	> "statistic." 



	While teaching physics at West Point in the eighties, I provided a 

	course-wide lecture on the biological effects of radiation. In

leading to the discussion 

	of LNT, I mentioned that we all have about a one in six chance of

dying of 

	cancer. However, that shouldn't be alarming because we also have a

five in six 

	chance of dying of something else. The cadets seemed surprised at

facing 

	mortality in such cold terms, but it helped put radiation risks in

perspective.



	Bob



	- --part1_bf.31dbf9b2.2bfba8be_boundary

	Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

	Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



	<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3D2

FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=

	=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 5/20/2003 8:48:25 AM

Central Daylig=

	ht Time, BLHamrick@AOL.COM writes:<BR>

	<BR>

	<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid;

MARGIN-LEFT=

	: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">While I think we can

reduce our=

	 risks of an untoward death, we first must all realize that one day,

like it=

	 or not, we will with certainty become a "statistic."

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><F=

	ONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D3

FAMILY=

	=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><BR>

	</FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"

SIZE=3D2=

	 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><BR>

	While teaching physics at West Point in the eighties, I provided a

course-wi=

	de lecture on the biological effects of radiation. In leading to the

discuss=

	ion of LNT, I mentioned that we all have about a one in six chance

of dying=20=

	of cancer. However, that shouldn't be alarming because we also have

a five i=

	n six chance of dying of something else. The cadets seemed surprised

at faci=

	ng mortality in such cold terms, but it helped put radiation risks

in perspe=

	ctive.<BR>

	<BR>

	Bob</FONT></HTML>



	- --part1_bf.31dbf9b2.2bfba8be_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.

	You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:59:40 -0700 (PDT)

	From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>

	Subject: Re: Radiation sickness



	- --0-904321844-1053446380=:65626

	Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii



	Without a medical workup this is all speculation.  My first guess is

malnutrition.  Also, lack of intelligence drinking from a barrel that may

have contained chemical wastes. By the way, how is the father doing since he

drank from the same barrel?



	Jim Hoerner <jim_hoerner@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

	Radiation sickness

	5/16/2003 10:18 AM

	By: Capital News 9 web staff



	[There is also a video available at the cited link. The people

supposedly 

	suffering from acute radiation sickness look pretty healthy to me.

Not what 

	I would expect if it were true. - JH]



	Amar doesn't go out much these days. He said he's been sick ever

since he 

	drank water from a plastic barrel looted from nearby Al-Tuwaitha,

Saddam's 

	biggest nuclear research complex.

	. . .



	He said he only drank water from the barrel once, just after he and

his father bought it from a man in the street.  . . .



	 







	- -- John

	John Jacobus, MS

	Certified Health Physicist

	e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



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

	Do you Yahoo!?

	The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

	- --0-904321844-1053446380=:65626

	Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii



	<DIV>Without a medical workup this is all speculation.&nbsp; My

first guess is malnutrition.&nbsp; Also, lack of intelligence drinking from

a barrel that may have contained chemical wastes. By the way, how is the

father doing since he drank from the same barrel?<BR><BR><B><I>Jim Hoerner

&lt;jim_hoerner@HOTMAIL.COM&gt;</I></B> wrote:

	<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;

PADDING-LEFT: 5px">

	<P>Radiation sickness<BR>5/16/2003 10:18 AM<BR>By: Capital News 9

web staff<BR><BR>[There is also a video available at the cited link. The

people supposedly <BR>suffering from acute radiation sickness look pretty

healthy to me. Not what <BR>I would expect if it were true. -

JH]<BR><BR>Amar doesn't go out much these days. He said he's been sick ever

since he <BR>drank water from a plastic barrel looted from nearby

Al-Tuwaitha, Saddam's <BR>biggest nuclear research complex.<BR>. . .</P>

	<P>He said he only drank water from the barrel once, just after he

and his father bought it from a man in the street.&nbsp; . . .</P>

	<P>&nbsp;</P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR>-- John<br>John Jacobus,

MS<br>Certified Health Physicist<br>e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com<p><hr

SIZE=1>

	Do you Yahoo!?<br>

	<a

href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com";>The

New Yahoo! Search</a> - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

	- --0-904321844-1053446380=:65626--

	

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

	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 11:28:18 -0500

	From: "Michael G. Stabin" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>

	Subject: Re: Tooth fairy inspired law suit



	"John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM> wrote:



	>I bet the highway death rates linked to Sr-90 is much higher.





	John, I think you are right. I refer you to a finding I published

some years

	back. The dose models and even background dose equivalent rates need

to be

	updated, but the conclusions are the same, and support your

reasonable

	suggestion.



	Traffic Fatality Dose/Response Model.



	Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP.



	In 1985, Voelz et al. (Voelz et al. 1985) published results of their

37 year

	followup of Manhattan Project plutonium workers.  While some comfort

is

	afforded by the results regarding the incidence of neoplasms and

other

	diseases in this small population, I find it somewhat disturbing to

note the

	increased incidence of fatalities due to auto/pedestrian accidents

(1

	observed vs. 0.96 expected).  From the data, it appears that the

increased

	risk of such fatalaties is about 4% in the observed population. The

authors

	neglected to derive a dose-response model for these data, believing,

quite

	naively, that "None of the positive findings...can be attributed to

the Pu

	depositions."  In this enlightened age in which all reasonable

people

	recognize the clearly defined link between small amounts of

radiation and

	effects such as stillbirths, cancer, etc., it is difficult to

understand why

	the authors overlooked this obvious effect.



	To derive a dose-response model, I will limit my discussion to dose

the

	bone, liver, and lungs, because these organs account for almost 100%

of the

	total transformations of Pu-239 in a class Y material (ICRP 1979).

From

	Table 4 of Voelz et al., and from tables in ICRP 30, I estimate

roughly a

	collective committed dose of 37 person-Sv to the red marrow, 460

person-Sv

	to the bone, 100 person-Sv to the liver, and 150 person-Sv to the

lungs in

	the exposed population.  This would result in a collective effective

dose

	equivalent of 43.4 Person-Sv.  Therefore, the excess increased risk

of

	radiation-induced traffic fatalities of this type should be on the

order of

	9.2E-4 per person-Sv.  Assuming a linear, non-threshold model, this

would

	indicate that 420 auto/pedestrian fatalities in the US each year may

be

	attributed to background radiation, based on a population of 230

million

	people receiving an average of 2 mGy per year.  In addition, based

on the

	projections for power consumption in UNSCEAR 1982, we may expect 9.2

	additional auto/pedestrian fatalities each year attributable to

nuclear

	power production in the year 2000.  I think that it is a clear and

present

	danger that we face here, and I feel that we should make every

effort to

	immediately halt nuclear power production, coal power production

(because

	the lung dose from this pathway is comparable to or higher than that

from

	nuclear power production), natural gas consumption (due to the

Rn-222

	component), and above all, we must find some way to completely

eliminate the

	populations's exposure to cosmic and terrestrial radiation.



	References



	ICRP 1979 - International Commission on Radiological Protection,

1979.

	Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers.  ICRP Publication

30,

	Oxford, Pergammon Press.



	UNSCEAR 1982 - United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of

Atomic

	Radiation, 1982 Report to the General Assembly, 1982.  Ionizing

Radiation:

	Sources and Biological Effects, United Nations, New York.



	Voelz 1985 - G. Voelz, R. Grier, and L. Hempelmann, 1985.  A 37-year

medical

	followup of Mannhattan Project Pu workers.  Health Physics,

48:249-260.







	Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP

	Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

	Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

	Vanderbilt University

	1161 21st Avenue South

	Nashville, TN 37232-2675

	Phone (615) 343-0068

	Fax   (615) 322-3764

	Pager (615) 835-5153

	e-mail     michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu

	internet   www.doseinfo-radar.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.

	You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 13:17:08 -0400

	From: CONTEDU <contedu@hsph.harvard.edu>

	Subject: Harvard Announces Industrial Hygiene Program



	- --=====================_15114753==_.ALT

	Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed

	Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



	Comprehensive Industrial Hygiene:

	Practical Applications of Basic Principles



	June 23 - 27, 2003



	Overview

	Recognized industry-wide for having benefited thousands of

professionals=20

	and technicians, this program offers a comprehensive introduction to

the=20

	fundamentals of state-of-the-art industrial hygiene practice.



	Learn how to use the key concepts and principles of this profession

to:=20

	identify potential hazards in the workplace, select methods for

the=20

	assessment of exposures to hazards, evaluate the consequences of

excessive=

	=20

	exposure, and institute techniques for prevention and control of=20

	occupational disease.



	Who Should Attend

	=B7       safety managers and technicians

	=B7       manufacturing and facility engineers

	=B7       line and plant managers

	=B7       occupational physicians and nurses

	=B7       chemists

	=B7       industrial hygienists and technicians

	=B7       loss control managers and risk managers



	Why You Should Attend

	Understanding the elements of occupational safety and health is

essential=20

	for the protection of workers in any setting. This program will

provide you=

	=20

	with the key principles of industrial hygiene practice needed by=20

	professionals and technologists with direct or managerial

responsibility=20

	for industrial hygiene programs.



	Upon Completion Of This Course You Should Be Able To

	=B7       evaluate work practices and engineering control techniques

for the=

	=20

	prevention of occupational disease

	=B7       recognize health hazards in occupational settings

	=B7       select control measures specific to exposures

	=B7       determine the physiological and toxicological effects of

exposures=

	=20

	to industrial hazards

	=B7       understand the physical and chemical behavior of aerosols

and gas=

	=20

	mixtures

	=B7       analyze industrial exhaust ventilation systems

	=B7       identify methods to measure and control noise stresses in

the=20

	workplace

	=B7       distinguish the effects of ionizing and non-ionizing

radiation

	=B7       detect the sources of ergonomic stress in the factory and

office



	Additional Benefits

	=B7       in-class demonstrations of air sampling and ventilation=

	 measurements

	=B7       discussion of current OSHA issues suggested by

participants

	=B7       orientation toward practical application of industrial

hygiene=20

	principles



	Faculty offer extensive practical experience and results-based

teaching=20

	methods to ensure that participants leave with the necessary skills

and=20

	understanding.



	For more information and to register:

	Visit: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ccpe/programs/FIH.shtml

	phone: (617) 384 - 8692

	fax: (617) 384 - 8690

	e-mail: contedu@hsph.harvard.edu

	address: Center for Continuing Professional Education

	677 Huntington Avenue, CCPE-Dept. A

	Boston, MA 02115-6096



	- --=====================_15114753==_.ALT

	Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"

	Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



	<html>

	<font color=3D"#000080"><b>Comprehensive Industrial Hygiene:<br>

	Practical Applications of Basic Principles<br>

	<br>

	</font>June 23 - 27, 2003 <br>

	<br>

	</b><font color=3D"#000080">Overview<br>

	</font>Recognized industry-wide for having benefited thousands of

	professionals and technicians, this program offers a comprehensive

	introduction to the fundamentals of state-of-the-art industrial

hygiene

	practice.<br>

	<br>

	Learn how to use the key concepts and principles of this profession

to:

	identify potential hazards in the workplace, select methods for the

	assessment of exposures to hazards, evaluate the consequences of

	excessive exposure, and institute techniques for prevention and

control

	of occupational disease.<br>

	<br>

	<font color=3D"#000080">Who Should Attend<br>

	</font><font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&=

	nbsp;</x-tab></font>safety

	managers and technicians <br>

	<font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</=

	x-tab></font>manufacturing

	and facility engineers <br>

	<font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</=

	x-tab></font>line

	and plant managers <br>

	<font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</=

	x-tab></font>occupational

	physicians and nurses <br>

	<font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</=

	x-tab></font>chemists

	<br>

	<font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</=

	x-tab></font>industrial

	hygienists and technicians <br>

	<font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</=

	x-tab></font>loss

	control managers and risk managers <br>

	<br>

	<font color=3D"#000080">Why You Should Attend</font><b> <br>

	</b>Understanding the elements of occupational safety and health is

	essential for the protection of workers in any setting. This program

will

	provide you with the key principles of industrial hygiene practice

needed

	by professionals and technologists with direct or managerial

	responsibility for industrial hygiene programs.<br>

	<br>

	<font color=3D"#000080">Upon Completion Of This Course You Should Be

Able

	To<br>

	</font><font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&=

	nbsp;</x-tab></font>evaluate

	work practices and engineering control techniques for the prevention

of

	occupational disease <br>

	<font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</=

	x-tab></font>recognize

	health hazards in occupational settings <br>

	<font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</=

	x-tab></font>select

	control measures specific to exposures <br>

	<font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</=

	x-tab></font>determine

	the physiological and toxicological effects of exposures to

industrial

	hazards <br>

	<font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</=

	x-tab></font>understand

	the physical and chemical behavior of aerosols and gas mixtures <br>

	<font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</=

	x-tab></font>analyze

	industrial exhaust ventilation systems <br>

	<font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</=

	x-tab></font>identify

	methods to measure and control noise stresses in the workplace <br>

	<font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</=

	x-tab></font>distinguish

	the effects of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation <br>

	<font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</=

	x-tab></font>detect

	the sources of ergonomic stress in the factory and office <br>

	<br>

	<font color=3D"#000080">Additional Benefits<br>

	</font><font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&=

	nbsp;</x-tab></font>in-class

	demonstrations of air sampling and ventilation measurements <br>

	<font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</=

	x-tab></font>discussion

	of current OSHA issues suggested by participants <br>

	<font

face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</=

	x-tab></font>orientation

	toward practical application of industrial hygiene principles <br>

	<br>

	Faculty offer extensive practical experience and results-based

teaching

	methods to ensure that participants leave with the necessary skills

and

	understanding.<br>

	<br>

	For more information and to register:<br>

	Visit:

	<a href=3D"http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ccpe/programs/FIH.shtml"=

	

eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ccpe/programs/FIH.shtml</a><=

	br>

	<b>phone:</b> (617) 384 - 8692 <br>

	<b>fax:</b> (617) 384 - 8690 <br>

	<b>e-mail:</b>

	<font color=3D"#0000FF"><u>contedu@hsph.harvard.edu</u></font> <br>

	<b>address:</b> Center for Continuing Professional Education <br>

	677 Huntington Avenue, CCPE-Dept. A<br>

	Boston, MA 02115-6096<br>

	</html>



	- --=====================_15114753==_.ALT--



	

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

	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:22:04 -0700 (PDT)

	From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>

	Subject: RE: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY

HOSPITAL IN   MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC



	- --0-95679621-1053451324=:72013

	Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii



	My understanding is that the NRC does not determine how much control

is to be placed on the patient.  It is the licensees responsibility of

ensure that public exposures do not exceed 100 mrem/y (1 mSv/y) or 500

mrem/y (5 mSv/y) to a caretaker.  In this case, the licensee did not meets

its obligation to reduce exposures to the public.  

	 

	With regard to a patient terminating treatment, I would believe that

all the licensee is required to do is instruct the patient on reducing

exposures to the public.  Once the patient leaves the facility, the licensee

has no control over their actions.  HOWEVER, I suspecting that it is not

unreasonable for a facility to refuse to treat a patient who they suspect

will not (1) complete the course of treatment, and (2) follow directions

associated with that treatment.  I can honestly say I have not heard of a

situation where the patient has left during a treatment.  I can imagine a

situation where an Alzheimer's patient may require treatment, but sedation

and montoring could be used to control their actions.



	"Knapp, Steven J." <Steven.Knapp@MED.VA.GOV> wrote:

	I am not a lawyer, but I surmise patients have the right to

terminate their medical treatment and go home at any time unless they pose

imminent danger to the public.  If a patient goes home, the situation is not

monitored.  Where is the consistency in mitigating the radiation risk when

the patient is hospitalized versus being at home?  This appears to be a

regulatory problem, not a health risk problem.  The NRC consultant stated

the radiation health risk to family members was insignificant.

	 

	The questions still remains, how much control over the patient and

family is required before the NRC determines the control is adequate?  Would

the NRC have a similar conclusion if an RSO completed the procedures listed

in the NRC letter to St. Joseph Mercy Hospital and a noncompliant and

informed family member exceeded the radiation dose limit?

	 

	It is obvious the RSO could have done things to lessen the

opportunity for the NRC to find fault, but even if he did, would that have

been enough?

	. . .







	- -- John

	John Jacobus, MS

	Certified Health Physicist

	e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



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

	Do you Yahoo!?

	The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

	- --0-95679621-1053451324=:72013

	Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii



	<DIV>My understanding is that&nbsp;the NRC does not determine how

much control is to be placed on the patient.&nbsp; It is the licensees

responsibility of ensure that&nbsp;public exposures do not exceed 100 mrem/y

(1 mSv/y) or 500 mrem/y (5 mSv/y) to a caretaker.&nbsp; In this case, the

licensee did not meets its obligation to reduce exposures to the

public.&nbsp; </DIV>

	<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

	<DIV>With regard to a patient terminating treatment, I would believe

that all the licensee is required to do is instruct the patient on reducing

exposures to the public.&nbsp; Once the patient leaves the facility, the

licensee has no control over their actions.&nbsp; HOWEVER,&nbsp;I suspecting

that it is not unreasonable for a facility to refuse to treat a patient who

they suspect will not (1) complete the course of treatment, and (2)

follow&nbsp;directions associated with that treatment.&nbsp; I can honestly

say I have not heard of a situation where the patient has left during a

treatment.&nbsp; I can imagine a situation where an Alzheimer's&nbsp;patient

may require treatment, but sedation and montoring could be used to control

their actions.<BR><BR><B><I>"Knapp, Steven J."

&lt;Steven.Knapp@MED.VA.GOV&gt;</I></B> wrote:</DIV>

	<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;

PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0

Transitional//EN">

	<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR>

	<STYLE></STYLE>



	<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN

class=871454312-19052003>I am not a lawyer, but I surmise patients have the

right to terminate their medical treatment and go home at any time unless

they pose imminent danger to the public.&nbsp; If a patient goes home, the

situation is not monitored.&nbsp; Where is the consistency in mitigating the

radiation risk when the patient is hospitalized versus being at home?&nbsp;

This appears to be a regulatory problem, not a health risk problem.&nbsp;

The NRC consultant stated the radiation health risk to family members was

insignificant.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>

	<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial

size=2></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>

	<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>

	<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN

class=871454312-19052003>The questions still remains, <U>how much control

over the patient and family is required</U> before the NRC determines the

control is adequate?&nbsp; Would the NRC have a similar conclusion if an RSO

completed the procedures listed in the NRC letter to St. Joseph Mercy

Hospital and a noncompliant and informed family member exceeded the

radiation dose limit?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>

	<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN

class=871454312-19052003></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>

	<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN

class=871454312-19052003>It is obvious the RSO could have done things to

lessen the opportunity for the NRC to find fault, but even if he did, would

that have been enough?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>

	<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN

class=871454312-19052003></SPAN></FONT>. .

.</FONT></FONT></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>-- John<br>John Jacobus,

MS<br>Certified Health Physicist<br>e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com<p><hr

SIZE=1>

	Do you Yahoo!?<br>

	<a

href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com";>The

New Yahoo! Search</a> - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

	- --0-95679621-1053451324=:72013--

	

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

	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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



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



	End of radsafe-digest V1 #789

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



	

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

	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/