[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Unresolvable mail address
A copy of your message is being returned to you because one or more of
the addresses you specified could not be recognized as addresses that are
understood by, or reachable from, this system.
error: unresolvable: douglasmackey@hotmail.comdougm
------- Original Message follows -------
external
origin internal
rcvdfrom funnelweb.cs.nsw.gov.au ([152.76.42.4])
with ESMTP
from <radsafe-digest-owner@list.vanderbilt.edu>
to <douglasmackey@hotmail.comdougm>
Received: from nucmed.crg.cs.nsw.gov.au ([152.76.85.153])
by funnelweb.cs.nsw.gov.au (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219
ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with ESMTP id au
for <douglasmackey@hotmail.comdougm>;
Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:54:14 +1000
Received: by nucmed.crg.cs.nsw.gov.au (Postfix)
id 02FB923AE72; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:20:17 +1000 (EST)
Delivered-To: dougm@nucmed.crg.cs.nsw.gov.au
Received: from carina.cs.nsw.gov.au (carina.cs.nsw.gov.au [152.76.2.133])
by nucmed.crg.cs.nsw.gov.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18AB23AE6D
for <dougm@nucmed.crg.cs.nsw.gov.au>; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:20:16 +1000 (EST)
Received: from gw.cs.nsw.gov.au (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by carina.cs.nsw.gov.au (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id i393sDE11157
for <dougm@nucmed.crg.cs.nsw.gov.au>; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:54:13 +1000 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: carina.cs.nsw.gov.au: iscan owned process doing -bs
Received: from list.vanderbilt.edu ([129.59.1.111]) by gw1.gw.cs.nsw.gov.au with ESMTP id <118191>; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:54:02 +1000
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by list.Vanderbilt.Edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA12316
for radsafe-digest-outgoing; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 12:58:50 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 12:58:50 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <200404081758.MAA12316@list.Vanderbilt.Edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: list.Vanderbilt.Edu: majordom set sender to owner-radsafe-digest@list.vanderbilt.edu using -f
From: owner-radsafe-digest@list.vanderbilt.edu (radsafe-digest)
To: radsafe-digest@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: radsafe-digest V1 #1086
Reply-To: $SENDER@list.vanderbilt.edu
Sender: owner-radsafe-digest@list.vanderbilt.edu
Errors-To: owner-radsafe-digest@list.vanderbilt.edu
Precedence: bulk
radsafe-digest Thursday, April 8 2004 Volume 01 : Number 1086
In this issue:
Fe60 calc
Re: Niagara Transuranics and Hg mistake
Methyl Mercury
RE: Niagara Transuranics and Hg mistake
Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
Re: Niagara Transuranics and Hg mistake
Re: Niagara Transuranics and Hg mistake
Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
RE: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
Can Somebody Explain this to me . . . .
Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
Radiogenic Colon Ca
Re: Radiogenic Colon Ca
DOE is Using Good Science to Save Money
RE: A Question for Power Reactor Types and others with portal monitors.
RE: A Question for Power Reactor Types and others with portal mon itors.
RE: A Question for Power Reactor Types and others with portal monitors.
RE: A Question for Power Reactor Types and others with portal mon itors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:14:00 -0500
From: daleboyce@charter.net
Subject: Fe60 calc
Forgive me I'm doing this on the fly so I don't know the result I'll get.
I'll be doing a lot of handwaving (guesstimating) since I don't have all of
the necessary data.There are two mechanisms that I see for producing it.
Multiple neutron capture on Fe58 and fission.
It is certainly produced at some level, albeit tiny. It comes from neutron
capture in radioactive Fe59 which is from neutron capture on Fe58. I don't
have a good reference handy that lists saturation activity for Fe59 in a
reactor. If you can find the Fe59 activity you can calculated the number of
atoms of target material you have(not very many. About 2e17 atoms/Ci of Fe59
or 20ug/Ci)) and compare that to the number target atoms of Fe58 you have (a
whole bunch comparatively about 3e22 atoms of Fe58/Ci of Fe59 assuming a
flux of 1e12n/cm^2/sec). Higher fluxes improves the ratio. Estimate a
capture cross section (for the heck of it let's assume the Fe59 cross
section is the same as that for Fe58).
This assumed, the saturation activity would be the ratio of target atoms
Fe59/Fe58 or about 6 uCi Fe60/Ci of Fe59. Now pick a number of years for
the ingrowth in you component. This isn't fuel so it is probably more than
three years. Let's say 10 years for a saturation factor of 7e-5 giving a
ratio of Fe60/Fe59 of 4.4E-10.
Somewhere out around 150 years or so you might start to see a tail in the
Co60 decay depending on the Fe58/Co59 ratio in your stainless.
You might have a better chance of seeing it directly from fission though I
doubt it. At A = 72 the fission yield is 0.000027% and is dropping about a
factor of 3 per unit mass. 3^12 is about 500,000 so maybe 2E-13
atoms/fission. A kilogram of U235 fission is a GW day so 3 years of running
is about a metric ton of fissions =1e6/235*6e23 = 2.6e27 fissions. 2.6e27 *
2e-13/fission = 5e14 atoms of Fe60 or about 100 Bq or so.
If you're seeing any there is some exotic mechanism that I'm missing.
Hope this helps
Dale
daleboyce@charter.net
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Szakács Sándor
To: radsafe_Lista
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 4:34 AM
Subject: Fe-60, can it occur in NPReactors?
Dear Radsafers,
pls help if you can re this exotic nuclide: Fe-60. Does it occur in Nuclear
Power Reactor waste, or core (fuel rod deposition)? How can it appear? In
the sixth edition (1967) of Lederer-Hollander-Perlman's Table of Isotopes
there is hardly any information. Because of its 59 keV (Co-60m) gamma decay
could be easily identified as Am-241 by the gamma spectrometer software,
causing discrepancy with the alpha counts of the same smear sample
population.
I've seen some documents (DOE? NRC?) re the permitted activity levels of
Fe-60 but couldn't find anything else on Internet. Search or literature tips
welcome.
Thanks and best regards,
Sandor Szakacs
lazsadis@okk.antsz.hu
National Research Inst. for Radiobiology and Radiohygiene,
Budapest, Hungary
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 17:24:36 -0400
From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Niagara Transuranics and Hg mistake
In a message dated 4/7/2004 2:24:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM> writes:
>Not to be a nucance, but I would still like to know if
>mercury for coal burning contributes to mercury
>contamination in the ocean/food chain. If so, we need
>to stop burning coal and increase our use of nuclear
>power.
>
In a few words, no I don't believe so.
- --
Ruth F. Weiner
ruthweiner@aol.com
505-856-5011
(o)505-284-8406
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:26:36 -0500
From: daleboyce@charter.net
Subject: Methyl Mercury
I confess I haven't been following this thread. So if I'm being redundant
please don't waste your time telling me.
Here is a good site for toxicity info:
http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/tox/profiles/methyl_mercury_f_V1.shtml
Methyl mercury is synthesized from inorganic mercury by microbes in nature.
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/133/5/1539S
It is important because it is efficiently adsorbed through inhalation,
ingestion, and skin contact, and therefore provides a mechanism for
concentration in the food chain. This happens whether human caused
contamination is a factor or not. Industrial contamination is associated
with the known events where severe health effects were observed, but is not
a requirement for mercury to appear in the food chain. Old bodies of water
may have lower levels of methyl mercury than newer man made reservoirs.
More available natural inorganic mercury???
Although the monovalent HgCH3 can be synthesized, methyl mercury is also
used as a synonym for dimethyl mercury which is the more common valence
state. Methyl mercury can also be used to lump other compounds into a group
of readily absorbed compounds such as HgClCH3. They are all bad actors.
After hearing a radio blurb worrying about the possible use of osmium
tetroxide as a terrorist weapon. I did a little search on the toxicities of
methyl mercury, osmium tetroxide, and some other bad actors that are much
more available and readily synthesized (I won't mention specifics). Not too
surprisingly I find that I lump them in with dirty bombs as working really
hard to make something that isn't easy for very little added effect.
Dale
daleboyce@charter.net
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:26:22 -0700
From: John R Johnson <idias@interchange.ubc.ca>
Subject: RE: Niagara Transuranics and Hg mistake
John and other Radsafers
Isn't global warming (rising sea levels, etc) a more important reason to
stop burning fossil fuels?
_________________
John R Johnson, Ph.D.
*****
President, IDIAS, Inc
4535 West 9-Th Ave
Vancouver B. C.
V6R 2E2
(604) 222-9840
idias@interchange.ubc.ca
*****
or most mornings
Consultant in Radiation Protection
TRIUMF
4004 Wesbrook Mall
Vancouver B. C.
V6R 2E2
(604) 222-1047 Ext. 6610
Fax: (604) 222-7309
johnsjr@triumf.ca
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of John Jacobus
Sent: April 7, 2004 11:25 AM
To: NiagaraNet@AOL.COM; radsafe-digest@list.vanderbilt.edu
Cc: NiagaraNet@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Niagara Transuranics and Hg mistake
Not to be a nucance, but I would still like to know if
mercury for coal burning contributes to mercury
contamination in the ocean/food chain. If so, we need
to stop burning coal and increase our use of nuclear
power.
- --- NiagaraNet@AOL.COM wrote:
> RADSAFERS:
>
> I am concerned with the mistaken statement about the
> conversion of mercury in
> biota. This is not a small one, nor easily
> overlooked.
>
> Would anyone like to assist with my transuranics
> issues in the general
> Niagara Falls Niagara County area and the poor
> disposal practices of yore?
>
> Thanks to Jim Dukelow of PNNL for the heads up and
> clarification on this.
> .
> Regards,
> Louis Ricciuti
> Niagara County - "Los Alamos East"
> _____________
>
> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:35:49 -0400
> From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM
> Subject: Re: Mercury scam?
>
> >Did you calculate the amount of mercury deposited
> in
> >the ocean from the burning of coal and other
> >industrial processes? What form is the mercury
> >entering the oceans? As an organic form that can
> be
> >absorbed by biota?
> >
> 3. Metallic mercury apparently can be methylated by
> marine organisms to form
> dimethyl mercury.
>
> Ruth F. Weiner
> ruthweiner@aol.com
> 505-856-5011
> (o)505-284-8406
> _______________
>
> Ruth,
>
> I think marine organisms methylate mercury to methyl
> mercury. Dimethyl
> mercury is extraordinarily toxic. In August 1996
> the Dartmouth chemist Karen
> Wetterhahn spilled a couple of drops of dimethyl
> mercury on her latex gloves. In
> January 1997 she was hospitalized with symptoms of
> mercury poisoning. She died
> a couple of months later. She had been following
> accepted guidelines for
> handling dimethyl mercury. The incident led to a
> revision of safety rules here
> at the laboratory. Methyl mercury is quite toxic,
> but not in the same ballpark
> as dimethyl mercury.
>
> Best regards.
> Jim Dukelow
> Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
> Richland, WA
> jim.dukelow@pnl.gov
>
> *Was LATEX the recommended handling procedure?
> My sincerest sympathies to Karen Wetterhahn's
> family. How sad.
>
=====
+++++++++++++++++++
""A fanatic is one who cannot change his mind and won't change the subject."
Winston Churchill
- -- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 20:03:50 -0500
From: daleboyce@charter.net
Subject: Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
Let me take this one step further without taking sides on cause and effect.
DU penetrates armor not only because it is nearly twice as dense as lead.
Uranium is also pyrophoric. When you shatter it into little pieces
penetrating armor it ignites violently inside the vehicle with the
misfortune to be hit. When you factor in that the kinetic energy of the
projectile gets converted into heat I would predict it is the equivalent of
a high explosive round going off.
The resultant uranium oxide smoke is very likely to be in the respirable
size range. If you convert the inhalation ALI's to grams you get about 50 mg
from ICRP and about three times that from U.S. regs. That is a lot of
powder to inhale at one time. Uranium Oxide is most likely inhalation class
Y. If it were D or W chemical toxicity would lead to a lower exposure limit.
That said ALI's are not supposed to lead to any significant probability of
long term health hazard and absolutely no acute health effect due to
radiologic considerations. Ten ALI"s?? threshold of possible long term
health effect. To get to a dose that would cause acute radiation sickness
we're talking about drowning in uranium dust. As an amusement I calculated
the disintegration rate of a 1 micron uranium particle (I was lazy and
didn't do the oxide since the uranium will be higher than the oxide) to be
1e-6 Bq.
So I will take sides and say it isn't a radiological effect.
Now having done a bit of chemistry with uranium, I know that to get a fairly
coarse powder to dissolve in HCl requires concentrated acid plus heat, and
time. Not the conditions you find in the human lung. However particle size
can make a difference (and frequently does) in the reactivity (non-nuclear
{8-).
I have never tried to dissolve uranium smoke. I suspect it would be easier.
In the inverse case, if you scrape the oxide coating off a piece of uranium
and take a little metal with it the metal you scrape off will ignite similar
to a Fourth of July sparkler.
The piece of metal will remain shiny briefly, but you can watch it quickly
darken as the surface oxidizes (you get some rainbow effects as the oxide
layer goes through a thickness between 100 and 1000 microns or so). It then
slows way down on the oxidation, but doesn't stop. A loose oxide coating
will continue to eat away at the metal until it is totally oxidized (unless
you do something to protect it). A big piece may take a very long time for
this to happen.
That said even if the uranium were slowly dissolving in the lung it would be
absorbed, and the kidney would be where you would expect to see a problem.
All this said, I can't rule out chemical toxicity based on what I know. My
gut tells me that it isn't the uranium, but I always preach that you don't
rule out a potential source of a problem until you have found the real
cause, or it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is not the cause.
I find that if there are two possible sources of contamination in a lab, it
is always the one attributable to the other guy ;)
Is there research out there on uranium smoke inhalation? Could it be a
secondary effect such as pH change in the lung? Unless the pathway
(particle size, chemical form, and route of intake) has been studied
somewhere, we don't know if there isn't something going on that isn't new.
My normal instinct would be to dismiss uranium as the cause. However a
nuclear medicine physician, whom I respected, contracted an unusual form of
head and neck cancer shortly after serving as a reserve in Gulf One. Head
and neck tumors benign and otherwise were an early complaint of a relatively
small number of Gulf War vets. It got washed out by all the other
complaints that came in after the publicity started to gain attention.
He and I discussed the possibility that it was caused by uranium, and I
assured him at the time that I had never heard of anything that would make
me suspect uranium. He died of it almost 5 years after contracting it, and
as is the case in most individual cancers, no cause can be assigned. If I
hadn't known him, I would have been sure that there was no real Gulf War
Syndrome.
Is there a real GWS? I don't know. In lieu of specific research (including
follow up) we'll never know the cause of the health complaints of our
soldiers coming home, or even if there is anything for which to find a
cause.
All I know is that in the case of the poor sucker sitting inside the tank,
we know the cause.
Dale
daleboyce@charter.net
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Helk" <frank.helk@nis-hanau.de>
To: "radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu" <radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu>;
"LNMolino@AOL.COM" <LNMolino@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
> Hi Louis,
>
> >Can someone explain to me how DU exposure ='s RAD sickness?
>
> OK - I think I can ... and I try to make it short and simple.
>
> Uranium - as it is found in the nature - consists of three nuclides, U234,
U235 and U238, of which only U235 is fissile (=usable for NPPs and bombs),
but
> they're all radioactive. Depleted Uranium has been mostly stripped off the
fissile nuclide. Besides of the radioactivity, uranium is a heavy metal,
roughly as
> chemotoxic as i.e. lead.
>
> If DU is used as ammunition (it can break shieds due to its very high
density), a great share of the bullet is pulverized by the force of the
impact.
>
> If the resulting dust is inhaled, the dust praticles accumulate in the
lung, with the following effects:
>
> - the particles irradiate the lung lissue with alpha radiation, which
could cause lung cancer
>
> - some of the uranium gets dissolved by the body liquids and will travel
mainly to the bones and accumulate there, where it will irradiate the bone
marrow - that
> may result in bone cancer and leukemia.
>
> - the uranium may also cause chemotoxic damage to i.e. the kidneys.
>
> There are therapies that may remove uranium from the blood by binding it
to chemicals that walk easy thru the kidneys.
>
> Best regards
>
> Frank
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 18:16:48 -0700
From: "MacLellan, Jay" <jay.maclellan@PNL.GOV>
Subject: Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C41D07.2A2C3927
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
RE:"The company whilst pretty ordinary in workplace cleanliness control,
did at least carry out monthly urine analyis for uranium. I was the
poor sap who had to prep the samples for despatch to the government
analyst by addition of preservative. (BTW, fluorimetric (chemical)
analysis of U in urine would not cost anywhere near $1000 per sample,
more like $50. If these guys are doing ISOTOPIC analysis, they are
pissing army money up against the wall)"
If you want to discriminate between natural uranium and depleted uranium
you have to do the isotopic analysis. Yes, the dose will be about the
same, but you want to know the source. I'd suggest screening with the
elemental analysis, then doing the isotopic on the positives. The
elemental will be between $50 and $100, and the isotopic over $200.
Jay MacLellan=20
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C41D07.2A2C3927
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.0.6389.0">
<TITLE>Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P ALIGN=3DLEFT><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Courier =
New">RE:</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Courier =
New">“</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Courier New">The company whilst =
pretty ordinary in workplace cleanliness control, did at least carry out =
monthly urine analyis for uranium. I was the poor sap who had to =
prep the samples for despatch to the government analyst by addition of =
preservative. (BTW, fluorimetric (chemical) analysis of U in urine =
would not cost anywhere near $1000 per sample, more like $50. If =
these guys are doing ISOTOPIC analysis, they are pissing army money up =
against the wall)</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Courier =
New">”</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN></P>
<P ALIGN=3DLEFT><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Courier =
New">If you want to</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"> <FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Courier =
New">discriminate</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Courier New"> between natural =
uranium and depleted uranium you have to do the isotopic analysis. =
Yes, the dose will be about the same, but</FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"> <FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Courier New">you want to know the source. =
I</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT =
SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Courier New">’</FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Courier New">d suggest screening with the elemental analysis, =
then doing the isotopic on the positive</FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Courier New">s</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Courier New">.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Courier New"> The elemental will be between $50 and $100, =
and the isotopic over $200.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN></P>
<P ALIGN=3DLEFT><I><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN></I><A NAME=3D""><I><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Monotype =
Corsiva">Jay MacLellan</FONT></SPAN></I></A><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"> </SPAN></P>
<P ALIGN=3DLEFT><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN></P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C41D07.2A2C3927--
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 20:05:30 -0600
From: Steven Dapra <sjd@swcp.com>
Subject: Re: Niagara Transuranics and Hg mistake
April 7
John Jacobus wrote: "Not to be a nucance, but I would still like to know
if mercury for coal burning contributes to mercury contamination in the
ocean/food chain. If so, we need to stop burning coal and increase our use
of nuclear power."
The easy answer is "yes," coal burning contributes to mercury
contamination in the ocean, and in the food chain. There are some
intricacies though.
The EPA has estimated that the total amount of mercury emitted from
coal-fired power plants in the US is 52 tons per year. The EPRI estimates
47 tons per year. This is about one-third of the EPA's estimated 158 tons
per year of man-made mercury emissions in the US.
From the EPA's website: "According to EPA's 1999 National Emissions
Inventory, coal-fired electric power plants are the largest source of
human-caused mercury air emissions in the U.S. Power plants account for
about 40% of total U.S. manmade mercury emissions. Other large sources are
industrial boilers (about 10% of U.S. mercury emissions), burning hazardous
waste (about 5%), and chlorine production (also about 5%). Burning
municipal waste and medical waste was once a large source of emissions but
today, in response to EPA and State regulations and reductions in mercury
use, these sources are much less important." (Link:
<http://www.epa.gov/mercury/information1.htm>)
This says nothing about global emissions, and the EPA's current "Frequent
Questions" also say nothing about global emissions. I have a set of EPA
FAQs about mercury that I printed out in December of 2000, and these FAQs
<do> inform the reader about global emissions. The EPA's own question was
"How much does the U.S. contribute to worldwide mercury emissions?"
Answer: "Although the amount of mercury the U.S. contributes globally is
small (about 3 percent), it still contributes more than it receives." The
FAQ says more about US contributions, but note that the US is made into the
villain (we don't contribute much - about three percent - but we "still
contribute more than (we) receive." (The current FAQs were last updated on
3-31-04. I won't address the convenient omission of the US's mere three
percent contribution.)
Regardless of all that, it appears that EPA has estimated total worldwide
emissions of mercury at from 5000 to 5500 tons per year. Of this, 2000
tons are estimated to come from man-made sources, 1000 tons from natural
sources, and 2000 tons from re-emissions. Mercury emissions from US
coal-fired plants amount to about one percent of worldwide emissions.
In 1998, the EPRI's Leonard Levin, Ph. D. had some germane observations on
mercury:
"The linkage between these [man-made] sources [of mercury] and deposition
is poorly understood, even for very large sources of mercury. This is
largely because the chemical state of the mercury leaving a source is
critical in determining how far the mercury will travel before it is
removed from the atmosphere. Data on whether mercury from a particular
source is ionized or in its 'elemental' form are basically lacking for most
sources."
"Direct measurements of mercury depositing to U.S. territory are still
sparse, and not representative yet of the entire nation."
Levin said that potential changes in U.S. industrial emissions might leave
the overall source term "basically unchanged," and then said:
"As indirect evidence of this, there are no data showing any overall
lowering of mercury levels in fish from remote lakes over the past 35
years, despite an 85% drop in U.S. industrial mercury use in that time."
The link to Levin's statement is :
<http://epw.senate.gov/105th/lev_10-1.htm>. As of today this link was
working.
For a large (22 page) "Toxicity summary for mercury" go to
<http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/tox/profiles/mercury_f_V1.shtml>. (Dale Boyce
also gave this link in his posting this evening.)
For an informative paper on "Global Source Attribution for Mercury
Deposition in the United States," see Seigneur et al. (2004). In
particular, see the Introduction (p. 555), and "Global Source Attribution,"
(pp. 564-568). The above-mentioned Dr. Leonard Levin assisted in preparing
this paper.
You can also see the editorial "Methylmercury Exposure and Neurotoxicity"
(Mahaffey 1998) in JAMA, discussing a mercury study in children on the
Seychelles Islands in the Indian Ocean. A study of Faroe Island (North
Atlantic) children is being conducted and I have read some summaries of
these two studies, but the findings seem to be inconclusive with respect to
adverse human health effects.
I have read some anti-mercury material, including a 1999 Environmental
Working Group report on US emissions (primarily from coal-fired plants),
but none of the 'antis' cite studies showing adverse health effects except
for large exposures; such as in Iraq (in 1972) and at Minamata Bay.
The National Academy Press has an online book ("Toxicological Effects of
Methylmercury"), and on page 325 the author(s) say that a study committee
developed estimates to "indicate that over 60,000 newborns annually might
be at risk for adverse neurodevelopmental effects from in utero exposure to
MeHg [methylmercury]." This assertion is repeated on page 327 (with
slightly different wording), but on neither page do the author(s) give
citations to source material to support this estimate or to explain how it
was derived.
To answer your question, John; yes, coal burning does contribute to
mercury contamination. But: apparently no one can prove or even show how
much of this mercury ends up in the food chain; and apparently no one can
prove or even show that the mercury in coal has had any adverse human
health effects.
Steven Dapra
sjd@swcp.com
REFERENCES
Mahaffey K. JAMA. 280(737-738); Aug. 26, 1998.
Seigneur C., et al. Environmental Science and Technology; 38(2):555-569;
2004. (ES&T is published by the American Chemical Society.)
************************************************************************
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: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 22:24:04 EDT
From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Niagara Transuranics and Hg mistake
- --part1_45.8e33d35.2da611c4_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Global climate change certainly has a more significant environmental effect
that mercuric oxide in fly ash.
However, we are not going to stop using coal as an energy source. Whether
burned directly or burned as gas or synthetic fuel, I suspect the world is going
to use all the coal it has until it is all used up. The same is true of any
energy source. We're going to use it all. Nuclear power is not a substitute
for coal, but a part of the mix of energy sources that we will contionue to
use.
I might also point out that it is no less political to manipulate "fear" of
global warming than to manipulate radiophobia.
Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com
- --part1_45.8e33d35.2da611c4_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 P=
TSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><B>Global climate=20=
change certainly has a more significant environmental effect that mercuric o=
xide in fly ash.<BR>
<BR>
However, we are not going to stop using coal as an energy source. Whet=
her burned directly or burned as gas or synthetic fuel, I suspect the world=20=
is going to use all the coal it has until it is all used up. The same=20=
is true of any energy source. We're going to use it all. Nuclear=
power is not a substitute for coal, but a part of the mix of energy sources=
that we will contionue to use.<BR>
<BR>
I might also point out that it is no less political to manipulate "fear" of=20=
global warming than to manipulate radiophobia.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#008000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR:=20=
#ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"=
></B>Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.<BR>
ruthweiner@aol.com</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_45.8e33d35.2da611c4_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: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 09:14:32 +0100
From: "Fred Dawson" <fd003f0606@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
DU is used in preference to Tungsten in KE rounds because unlike Tungsten DU
does not mushroom on impact, but self sharpens. You often find that the DU
rounds right through and out the other side. DU rounds do not tend to
shatter, but ablate as they pass through, the ablation process causing the
phyrophoric release of DU oxide.
It should also be noted that tungsten is not benign. The following reference
is worth a look
Miller AC, Mog S, McKinney L, Lei L, Allen J, Xu J, Page N. Neoplastic
transformation of human osteoblast cells to the tumorigenic phenotype by
heavy metal-tungsten alloy particles: induction of genotoxic effects.
Carcinogenesis, 22(1):115-25, Jan 2001.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/Cancer/DoD122.shtml
Fred Dawson
New Malden
Surrey. KT3 5BP
England
020 8287 2176
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <daleboyce@charter.net>
To: "Frank Helk" <frank.helk@nis-hanau.de>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>;
<LNMolino@AOL.COM>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
> Let me take this one step further without taking sides on cause and
effect.
>
> DU penetrates armor not only because it is nearly twice as dense as lead.
> Uranium is also pyrophoric. When you shatter it into little pieces
> penetrating armor it ignites violently inside the vehicle with the
> misfortune to be hit. When you factor in that the kinetic energy of the
> projectile gets converted into heat I would predict it is the equivalent
of
> a high explosive round going off.
>
> The resultant uranium oxide smoke is very likely to be in the respirable
> size range. If you convert the inhalation ALI's to grams you get about 50
mg
> from ICRP and about three times that from U.S. regs. That is a lot of
> powder to inhale at one time. Uranium Oxide is most likely inhalation
class
> Y. If it were D or W chemical toxicity would lead to a lower exposure
limit.
>
> That said ALI's are not supposed to lead to any significant probability of
> long term health hazard and absolutely no acute health effect due to
> radiologic considerations. Ten ALI"s?? threshold of possible long term
> health effect. To get to a dose that would cause acute radiation sickness
> we're talking about drowning in uranium dust. As an amusement I calculated
> the disintegration rate of a 1 micron uranium particle (I was lazy and
> didn't do the oxide since the uranium will be higher than the oxide) to be
> 1e-6 Bq.
>
> So I will take sides and say it isn't a radiological effect.
>
> Now having done a bit of chemistry with uranium, I know that to get a
fairly
> coarse powder to dissolve in HCl requires concentrated acid plus heat, and
> time. Not the conditions you find in the human lung. However particle
size
> can make a difference (and frequently does) in the reactivity (non-nuclear
> {8-).
>
> I have never tried to dissolve uranium smoke. I suspect it would be
easier.
> In the inverse case, if you scrape the oxide coating off a piece of
uranium
> and take a little metal with it the metal you scrape off will ignite
similar
> to a Fourth of July sparkler.
>
> The piece of metal will remain shiny briefly, but you can watch it quickly
> darken as the surface oxidizes (you get some rainbow effects as the oxide
> layer goes through a thickness between 100 and 1000 microns or so). It
then
> slows way down on the oxidation, but doesn't stop. A loose oxide coating
> will continue to eat away at the metal until it is totally oxidized
(unless
> you do something to protect it). A big piece may take a very long time for
> this to happen.
>
> That said even if the uranium were slowly dissolving in the lung it would
be
> absorbed, and the kidney would be where you would expect to see a problem.
>
> All this said, I can't rule out chemical toxicity based on what I know. My
> gut tells me that it isn't the uranium, but I always preach that you don't
> rule out a potential source of a problem until you have found the real
> cause, or it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is not the cause.
> I find that if there are two possible sources of contamination in a lab,
it
> is always the one attributable to the other guy ;)
>
> Is there research out there on uranium smoke inhalation? Could it be a
> secondary effect such as pH change in the lung? Unless the pathway
> (particle size, chemical form, and route of intake) has been studied
> somewhere, we don't know if there isn't something going on that isn't new.
>
> My normal instinct would be to dismiss uranium as the cause. However a
> nuclear medicine physician, whom I respected, contracted an unusual form
of
> head and neck cancer shortly after serving as a reserve in Gulf One. Head
> and neck tumors benign and otherwise were an early complaint of a
relatively
> small number of Gulf War vets. It got washed out by all the other
> complaints that came in after the publicity started to gain attention.
>
> He and I discussed the possibility that it was caused by uranium, and I
> assured him at the time that I had never heard of anything that would make
> me suspect uranium. He died of it almost 5 years after contracting it, and
> as is the case in most individual cancers, no cause can be assigned. If I
> hadn't known him, I would have been sure that there was no real Gulf War
> Syndrome.
>
> Is there a real GWS? I don't know. In lieu of specific research (including
> follow up) we'll never know the cause of the health complaints of our
> soldiers coming home, or even if there is anything for which to find a
> cause.
>
> All I know is that in the case of the poor sucker sitting inside the tank,
> we know the cause.
>
> Dale
> daleboyce@charter.net
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frank Helk" <frank.helk@nis-hanau.de>
> To: "radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu" <radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu>;
> "LNMolino@AOL.COM" <LNMolino@aol.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 2:38 AM
> Subject: Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
>
>
> > Hi Louis,
> >
> > >Can someone explain to me how DU exposure ='s RAD sickness?
> >
> > OK - I think I can ... and I try to make it short and simple.
> >
> > Uranium - as it is found in the nature - consists of three nuclides,
U234,
> U235 and U238, of which only U235 is fissile (=usable for NPPs and bombs),
> but
> > they're all radioactive. Depleted Uranium has been mostly stripped off
the
> fissile nuclide. Besides of the radioactivity, uranium is a heavy metal,
> roughly as
> > chemotoxic as i.e. lead.
> >
> > If DU is used as ammunition (it can break shieds due to its very high
> density), a great share of the bullet is pulverized by the force of the
> impact.
> >
> > If the resulting dust is inhaled, the dust praticles accumulate in the
> lung, with the following effects:
> >
> > - the particles irradiate the lung lissue with alpha radiation, which
> could cause lung cancer
> >
> > - some of the uranium gets dissolved by the body liquids and will travel
> mainly to the bones and accumulate there, where it will irradiate the bone
> marrow - that
> > may result in bone cancer and leukemia.
> >
> > - the uranium may also cause chemotoxic damage to i.e. the kidneys.
> >
> > There are therapies that may remove uranium from the blood by binding it
> to chemicals that walk easy thru the kidneys.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > 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/
>
>
>
************************************************************************
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: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 08:29:26 -0400
From: "Shackford, Hobart W" <hshackford@rwmc.org>
Subject: RE: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
Well, from all the discussion on this topic perhaps the ALARA principle should be applied and we should not send our soldiers into harm's way. But then again perhaps that is not "reasonable" :-(
I know political discussions are frowned upon in this forum but science does have an obligation to inform politicians of the potential consequences of their decisions. I think this thread, as the subject line suggests, helped to distill the information into something a lay person could grasp. Perhaps that information will eventually filter to the politicians through members of this list and result in more fully informed decisions in the future. I was encouraged in the original article that Senator Clinton was not primarily upset about the test results but that the military did not conduct the checks (at least that was the "sound bite" printed).
Hobie (ever optimistic)
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Fred Dawson
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 4:15 AM
To: daleboyce@charter.net; Frank Helk; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu;
LNMolino@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
DU is used in preference to Tungsten in KE rounds because unlike Tungsten DU
does not mushroom on impact, but self sharpens. You often find that the DU
rounds right through and out the other side. DU rounds do not tend to
shatter, but ablate as they pass through, the ablation process causing the
phyrophoric release of DU oxide.
It should also be noted that tungsten is not benign. The following reference
is worth a look
Miller AC, Mog S, McKinney L, Lei L, Allen J, Xu J, Page N. Neoplastic
transformation of human osteoblast cells to the tumorigenic phenotype by
heavy metal-tungsten alloy particles: induction of genotoxic effects.
Carcinogenesis, 22(1):115-25, Jan 2001.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/Cancer/DoD122.shtml
Fred Dawson
New Malden
Surrey. KT3 5BP
England
020 8287 2176
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <daleboyce@charter.net>
To: "Frank Helk" <frank.helk@nis-hanau.de>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>;
<LNMolino@AOL.COM>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
> Let me take this one step further without taking sides on cause and
effect.
>
> DU penetrates armor not only because it is nearly twice as dense as lead.
> Uranium is also pyrophoric. When you shatter it into little pieces
> penetrating armor it ignites violently inside the vehicle with the
> misfortune to be hit. When you factor in that the kinetic energy of the
> projectile gets converted into heat I would predict it is the equivalent
of
> a high explosive round going off.
>
> The resultant uranium oxide smoke is very likely to be in the respirable
> size range. If you convert the inhalation ALI's to grams you get about 50
mg
> from ICRP and about three times that from U.S. regs. That is a lot of
> powder to inhale at one time. Uranium Oxide is most likely inhalation
class
> Y. If it were D or W chemical toxicity would lead to a lower exposure
limit.
>
> That said ALI's are not supposed to lead to any significant probability of
> long term health hazard and absolutely no acute health effect due to
> radiologic considerations. Ten ALI"s?? threshold of possible long term
> health effect. To get to a dose that would cause acute radiation sickness
> we're talking about drowning in uranium dust. As an amusement I calculated
> the disintegration rate of a 1 micron uranium particle (I was lazy and
> didn't do the oxide since the uranium will be higher than the oxide) to be
> 1e-6 Bq.
>
> So I will take sides and say it isn't a radiological effect.
>
> Now having done a bit of chemistry with uranium, I know that to get a
fairly
> coarse powder to dissolve in HCl requires concentrated acid plus heat, and
> time. Not the conditions you find in the human lung. However particle
size
> can make a difference (and frequently does) in the reactivity (non-nuclear
> {8-).
>
> I have never tried to dissolve uranium smoke. I suspect it would be
easier.
> In the inverse case, if you scrape the oxide coating off a piece of
uranium
> and take a little metal with it the metal you scrape off will ignite
similar
> to a Fourth of July sparkler.
>
> The piece of metal will remain shiny briefly, but you can watch it quickly
> darken as the surface oxidizes (you get some rainbow effects as the oxide
> layer goes through a thickness between 100 and 1000 microns or so). It
then
> slows way down on the oxidation, but doesn't stop. A loose oxide coating
> will continue to eat away at the metal until it is totally oxidized
(unless
> you do something to protect it). A big piece may take a very long time for
> this to happen.
>
> That said even if the uranium were slowly dissolving in the lung it would
be
> absorbed, and the kidney would be where you would expect to see a problem.
>
> All this said, I can't rule out chemical toxicity based on what I know. My
> gut tells me that it isn't the uranium, but I always preach that you don't
> rule out a potential source of a problem until you have found the real
> cause, or it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is not the cause.
> I find that if there are two possible sources of contamination in a lab,
it
> is always the one attributable to the other guy ;)
>
> Is there research out there on uranium smoke inhalation? Could it be a
> secondary effect such as pH change in the lung? Unless the pathway
> (particle size, chemical form, and route of intake) has been studied
> somewhere, we don't know if there isn't something going on that isn't new.
>
> My normal instinct would be to dismiss uranium as the cause. However a
> nuclear medicine physician, whom I respected, contracted an unusual form
of
> head and neck cancer shortly after serving as a reserve in Gulf One. Head
> and neck tumors benign and otherwise were an early complaint of a
relatively
> small number of Gulf War vets. It got washed out by all the other
> complaints that came in after the publicity started to gain attention.
>
> He and I discussed the possibility that it was caused by uranium, and I
> assured him at the time that I had never heard of anything that would make
> me suspect uranium. He died of it almost 5 years after contracting it, and
> as is the case in most individual cancers, no cause can be assigned. If I
> hadn't known him, I would have been sure that there was no real Gulf War
> Syndrome.
>
> Is there a real GWS? I don't know. In lieu of specific research (including
> follow up) we'll never know the cause of the health complaints of our
> soldiers coming home, or even if there is anything for which to find a
> cause.
>
> All I know is that in the case of the poor sucker sitting inside the tank,
> we know the cause.
>
> Dale
> daleboyce@charter.net
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frank Helk" <frank.helk@nis-hanau.de>
> To: "radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu" <radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu>;
> "LNMolino@AOL.COM" <LNMolino@aol.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 2:38 AM
> Subject: Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
>
>
> > Hi Louis,
> >
> > >Can someone explain to me how DU exposure ='s RAD sickness?
> >
> > OK - I think I can ... and I try to make it short and simple.
> >
> > Uranium - as it is found in the nature - consists of three nuclides,
U234,
> U235 and U238, of which only U235 is fissile (=usable for NPPs and bombs),
> but
> > they're all radioactive. Depleted Uranium has been mostly stripped off
the
> fissile nuclide. Besides of the radioactivity, uranium is a heavy metal,
> roughly as
> > chemotoxic as i.e. lead.
> >
> > If DU is used as ammunition (it can break shieds due to its very high
> density), a great share of the bullet is pulverized by the force of the
> impact.
> >
> > If the resulting dust is inhaled, the dust praticles accumulate in the
> lung, with the following effects:
> >
> > - the particles irradiate the lung lissue with alpha radiation, which
> could cause lung cancer
> >
> > - some of the uranium gets dissolved by the body liquids and will travel
> mainly to the bones and accumulate there, where it will irradiate the bone
> marrow - that
> > may result in bone cancer and leukemia.
> >
> > - the uranium may also cause chemotoxic damage to i.e. the kidneys.
> >
> > There are therapies that may remove uranium from the blood by binding it
> to chemicals that walk easy thru the kidneys.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > 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/
>
>
>
************************************************************************
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: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 06:50:57 -0600
From: "Fred Dawson" <fd003f0606@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
DU is used in preference to Tungsten in KE rounds because unlike Tungsten DU
does not mushroom on impact, but self sharpens. You often find that the DU
rounds right through and out the other side. DU rounds do not tend to
shatter, but ablate as they pass through, the ablation process causing the
phyrophoric release of DU oxide.
It should also be noted that tungsten is not benign. The following reference
is worth a look
Miller AC, Mog S, McKinney L, Lei L, Allen J, Xu J, Page N. Neoplastic
transformation of human osteoblast cells to the tumorigenic phenotype by
heavy metal-tungsten alloy particles: induction of genotoxic effects.
Carcinogenesis, 22(1):115-25, Jan 2001.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/Cancer/DoD122.shtml
Fred Dawson
New Malden
Surrey. KT3 5BP
England
020 8287 2176
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <daleboyce@charter.net>
To: "Frank Helk" <frank.helk@nis-hanau.de>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>;
<LNMolino@AOL.COM>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
> Let me take this one step further without taking sides on cause and
effect.
>
> DU penetrates armor not only because it is nearly twice as dense as lead.
> Uranium is also pyrophoric. When you shatter it into little pieces
> penetrating armor it ignites violently inside the vehicle with the
> misfortune to be hit. When you factor in that the kinetic energy of the
> projectile gets converted into heat I would predict it is the equivalent
of
> a high explosive round going off.
>
> The resultant uranium oxide smoke is very likely to be in the respirable
> size range. If you convert the inhalation ALI's to grams you get about 50
mg
> from ICRP and about three times that from U.S. regs. That is a lot of
> powder to inhale at one time. Uranium Oxide is most likely inhalation
class
> Y. If it were D or W chemical toxicity would lead to a lower exposure
limit.
>
> That said ALI's are not supposed to lead to any significant probability of
> long term health hazard and absolutely no acute health effect due to
> radiologic considerations. Ten ALI"s?? threshold of possible long term
> health effect. To get to a dose that would cause acute radiation sickness
> we're talking about drowning in uranium dust. As an amusement I calculated
> the disintegration rate of a 1 micron uranium particle (I was lazy and
> didn't do the oxide since the uranium will be higher than the oxide) to be
> 1e-6 Bq.
>
> So I will take sides and say it isn't a radiological effect.
>
> Now having done a bit of chemistry with uranium, I know that to get a
fairly
> coarse powder to dissolve in HCl requires concentrated acid plus heat, and
> time. Not the conditions you find in the human lung. However particle
size
> can make a difference (and frequently does) in the reactivity (non-nuclear
> {8-).
>
> I have never tried to dissolve uranium smoke. I suspect it would be
easier.
> In the inverse case, if you scrape the oxide coating off a piece of
uranium
> and take a little metal with it the metal you scrape off will ignite
similar
> to a Fourth of July sparkler.
>
> The piece of metal will remain shiny briefly, but you can watch it quickly
> darken as the surface oxidizes (you get some rainbow effects as the oxide
> layer goes through a thickness between 100 and 1000 microns or so). It
then
> slows way down on the oxidation, but doesn't stop. A loose oxide coating
> will continue to eat away at the metal until it is totally oxidized
(unless
> you do something to protect it). A big piece may take a very long time for
> this to happen.
>
> That said even if the uranium were slowly dissolving in the lung it would
be
> absorbed, and the kidney would be where you would expect to see a problem.
>
> All this said, I can't rule out chemical toxicity based on what I know. My
> gut tells me that it isn't the uranium, but I always preach that you don't
> rule out a potential source of a problem until you have found the real
> cause, or it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is not the cause.
> I find that if there are two possible sources of contamination in a lab,
it
> is always the one attributable to the other guy ;)
>
> Is there research out there on uranium smoke inhalation? Could it be a
> secondary effect such as pH change in the lung? Unless the pathway
> (particle size, chemical form, and route of intake) has been studied
> somewhere, we don't know if there isn't something going on that isn't new.
>
> My normal instinct would be to dismiss uranium as the cause. However a
> nuclear medicine physician, whom I respected, contracted an unusual form
of
> head and neck cancer shortly after serving as a reserve in Gulf One. Head
> and neck tumors benign and otherwise were an early complaint of a
relatively
> small number of Gulf War vets. It got washed out by all the other
> complaints that came in after the publicity started to gain attention.
>
> He and I discussed the possibility that it was caused by uranium, and I
> assured him at the time that I had never heard of anything that would make
> me suspect uranium. He died of it almost 5 years after contracting it, and
> as is the case in most individual cancers, no cause can be assigned. If I
> hadn't known him, I would have been sure that there was no real Gulf War
> Syndrome.
>
> Is there a real GWS? I don't know. In lieu of specific research (including
> follow up) we'll never know the cause of the health complaints of our
> soldiers coming home, or even if there is anything for which to find a
> cause.
>
> All I know is that in the case of the poor sucker sitting inside the tank,
> we know the cause.
>
> Dale
> daleboyce@charter.net
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frank Helk" <frank.helk@nis-hanau.de>
> To: "radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu" <radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu>;
> "LNMolino@AOL.COM" <LNMolino@aol.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 2:38 AM
> Subject: Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
>
>
> > Hi Louis,
> >
> > >Can someone explain to me how DU exposure ='s RAD sickness?
> >
> > OK - I think I can ... and I try to make it short and simple.
> >
> > Uranium - as it is found in the nature - consists of three nuclides,
U234,
> U235 and U238, of which only U235 is fissile (=usable for NPPs and bombs),
> but
> > they're all radioactive. Depleted Uranium has been mostly stripped off
the
> fissile nuclide. Besides of the radioactivity, uranium is a heavy metal,
> roughly as
> > chemotoxic as i.e. lead.
> >
> > If DU is used as ammunition (it can break shieds due to its very high
> density), a great share of the bullet is pulverized by the force of the
> impact.
> >
> > If the resulting dust is inhaled, the dust praticles accumulate in the
> lung, with the following effects:
> >
> > - the particles irradiate the lung lissue with alpha radiation, which
> could cause lung cancer
> >
> > - some of the uranium gets dissolved by the body liquids and will travel
> mainly to the bones and accumulate there, where it will irradiate the bone
> marrow - that
> > may result in bone cancer and leukemia.
> >
> > - the uranium may also cause chemotoxic damage to i.e. the kidneys.
> >
> > There are therapies that may remove uranium from the blood by binding it
> to chemicals that walk easy thru the kidneys.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > 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/
>
>
>
************************************************************************
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: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:08:47 +0000
From: james.g.barnes@att.net
Subject: Can Somebody Explain this to me . . . .
[Sorry if this is a double posting; I seem to be having trouble with my email program.]
Dear Louis;
I'm not a medical doctor, but I've followed these situations with some interest.
To my knowledge of uranium physiology, I know of no effect that these soldiers are describing that is traceable to low levels of DU contamination. That's based on a pretty extensive series of studies as well as an extensive population of nuclear workers exposed to uranium during refining and utilization processes. The level of exposures to these nuclear workers certainly would bracket the exposure levels to soldiers who may have been exposed to DU during combat operations in in combat areas. It seems logical to me that these worker populations would have been displaying the same symptoms as the soldiers, but to my knowledge they have not.
Nevertheless, there are soldiers and veterans who insist that DU is the cause of their illnesses. I think it's a problem with the medical diagnostic model that gets used. I don't doubt that some of these folks don't feel well. The living conditions they are describing certainly don't sound too healthful. When they go to see the doctor, however, the doctor is trained to find the cause of the illness. DU has never been listed as a cause of these types of illnesses (and there's no compelling reason to believe that it is), so the doctor says it's not the DU based upon his medical skill and understanding of medical science. But while rejecting the DU diagnosis, the doctor can't find any other physical cause, so overtly or covertly the illness then gets relegated to being "mental" in origin. To the patient, this means that the doctor is essentially labeling him as crazy (you're sick, there's no cause, it's in your head).
The patient, of course, believes that something is making him ill, and that the doctor is simply incompetent or intentionally covering up misfeasance or malfeasance. From the patient's perspective, DU is the only "odd" factor that was in his environment, so from his perception it must have been the DU that made him sick. Over time, he becomes more and more convinced of this fact, helped along by various direct and subtle reinforcements. There was DU there, you're sick, it was the DU. Correlation is cause.
As the situation deteriorates, and the patient's health inevitably deteriorates, the patient becomes more and more desperate to find a cure for his condition. This search for a cure is stymied by the fact that without an acceptable cause for his condition, he cannot get insurance or other support for medical treatment (particularly if it has been labeled as mental in origin). To remedy this "injustice," medical condition advocacy groups are formed to get the condition recognized by the medical profession and to try to get financial support for these specific illnesses. Thus, the medical condition becomes a political issue, and is the basis for concerned politicians to demonstrate their caring. Politicians don't need a scientific argument of causation, they just need something that plausible. DU causing illness is pretty plausible on the surface.
To my mind, however, this all springs out of a requirement that an illness have a demonstrated "cause" before it can be acknowledged as being legitimate. I believe that the medical profession is starting to recognize that there may be illnesses that don't fit their diagnostic models very well, and there has been some movement in recent times to be willing to address symptoms a bit more broadly. I think the general point to recognize is that the individual presenting symptoms is sick (not crazy, ill). It's the cause of the illness that's in dispute; we shouldn't be demanding to prove the cause before we acknowledge an illness. I think this leads to a more non-confrontational situation where the object is *getting well*, not trying to find a cause to *prove* that you're sick.
Jim Barnes
james.g.barnes@att.net
************************************************************************
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: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:46:47 -0400
From: Susan Gawarecki <loc@icx.net>
Subject: Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk
>
>
>I would bet the troops had less-than-adequate briefings as to what
>medical risks might be present at the outset, because if they had, they
>would be focussing in on the real "probable exposure" situations (eg
>pneumonitis from birdshit, sensitization from solvent exposures, etc
>etc) rather than the unrealistic one of U exposure.
>
Not to mention silicosis (and general lung and sinus irritation) from
all that dust and sand. Even sandbox sand now carries warnings about
that. In the case of health concerns about radioactive and hazardous
materials exposures by workers in Oak Ridge, it was found that the
likely culprit for the generalized malaise and ill-defined symptoms was
more likely the high mold concentrations in the non-ventilated storage
areas.
My own opinions,
Susan Gawarecki
************************************************************************
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: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:43:11 -0400
From: alstonchris@netscape.net
Subject: Radiogenic Colon Ca
The answer is yes, for instance in the radiotherapeutic context. E.g., men who've had radiotherapy for prostate Ca are at increased risk for colon Ca, which enlarges with time after tx (natch).
Then, according to BEIR V (p.301): "Irradiation has been observed to increase the risk of colon cancer in humans and laboratory animals. The strongest evidence of the carcinogenic effects of radiation on the human colon is provided by the dose-dependent excess of colon cancers observed in Japanese A-bomb survivors."
Posted by Louis Ricciuti (at the request of Marvin Resnikoff):
"Ingestion of uranium would be much more effective in yielding a radiation dose to the colon and stomach; several of these workers developed colon cancer."
>
>Is radiation exposure a known risk factor for colon cancer?
__________________________________________________________________
Introducing the New Netscape Internet Service.
Only $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
************************************************************************
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: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 08:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Radiogenic Colon Ca
I think there is a distinct difference between
exposures at therapeutic levels of radiation and that
received from the ingestion of uranium, in its many
isotropic forms. In my limited experience with
external beam radiation therapy, the rectum was a
critical point. However, I not seen any information
about the risk of colon-rectal cancer from uranium
ingestion.
Just because colon rectal exists in a population that
has an intake of uranium does not mean there is a
casual relationship between the two.
- --- alstonchris@netscape.net wrote:
> The answer is yes, for instance in the
> radiotherapeutic context. E.g., men who've had
> radiotherapy for prostate Ca are at increased risk
> for colon Ca, which enlarges with time after tx
> (natch).
>
> Then, according to BEIR V (p.301): "Irradiation has
> been observed to increase the risk of colon cancer
> in humans and laboratory animals. The strongest
> evidence of the carcinogenic effects of radiation on
> the human colon is provided by the dose-dependent
> excess of colon cancers observed in Japanese A-bomb
> survivors."
>
>
> Posted by Louis Ricciuti (at the request of Marvin
> Resnikoff):
> "Ingestion of uranium would be much more effective
> in yielding a radiation dose to the colon and
> stomach; several of these workers developed colon
> cancer."
> >
> >Is radiation exposure a known risk factor for colon
> cancer?
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
> Introducing the New Netscape Internet Service.
> Only $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at
> http://isp.netscape.com/register
>
> Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
>
> New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
> Search from anywhere on the Web and block those
> annoying pop-ups.
> Download now at
> http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
>
************************************************************************
> 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/
>
=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"Those who have not known the joy of standing up for a great cause of justice have not known what makes living worthwhile."
Paul Painleve, regarding the Dreyfus Affair, 1895
- -- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
************************************************************************
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: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 08:58:42 -0700
From: "Rad Con Dean" <RadConDean@comcast.net>
Subject: DOE is Using Good Science to Save Money
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C41D47.B0E57DD0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
DOE has did their homework on legacy cleanup and is now trying to put =
the worms back in the can. Will they succeed in getting approval to use =
responsible cleanup goals? The below linked article tends to indicate =
they will try using blackmail to get the point across.
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_WASTE?SITE=3DNVREN&SEC=
TION=3DHOME
Dean Chaney
- ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C41D47.B0E57DD0
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 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>DOE has did their homework on legacy =
cleanup and is=20
now trying to put the worms back in the can. Will they succeed in =
getting=20
approval to use responsible cleanup goals? The below linked =
article tends=20
to indicate they will try using blackmail to get the point =
across.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_WASTE?SITE=3DN=
VREN&SECTION=3DHOME">http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLE=
AR_WASTE?SITE=3DNVREN&SECTION=3DHOME</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dean Chaney</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C41D47.B0E57DD0--
************************************************************************
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: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 09:32:02 -0700
From: "Sewell, Linda" <LMS1@PGE.COM>
Subject: RE: A Question for Power Reactor Types and others with portal monitors.
Greetings All,
Nuclear Medicine patients have been an issue at power plants for years since most of us have portal monitors at the exit to our protected area, not just the radiologically controlled areas. We've had 16 folks in our "portal pass" program in the past year and we employee approximately 1100 people.
We have found that Tc-99 alarms our portals for 1-3 weeks. I think it really depends on how much Mo-99 there is as a contaminant.
Tl-201 is typically less than a week but is dependent on what it's being used for.
I-123 used for thyroid scans is gone pretty quickly, within a few days.
I-131 for partial or complete thyroid ablation is a problem for 1 - 3 MONTHS and a dose rate issue for closely located co-workers for a few days.
We are starting to see F-18 and Ga-67 a bit now, but don't really have any good data yet.
Another one that is generally only an issue if your lower energy thresholds are set below 80 KeV or so are the prostate cancer seeds. The I-125 seeds are fairly straightforward but the Pd-103 seeds have a significant Zn-65 contaminant which can cause problems. If the monitors "see" that low, the seeds are an issue for 1-3 years.
Several of our workers have indicated that they were setting off the incoming gate alarms at our local landfill.
A common thread throughout which confuses the matter is that the folks doing the tests routinely tell the people that we'll never see it or that it will be gone in just a day or two. The bottom line is, as well all know, if you start off with a BUNCH of activity (millicuries) you still have a BUNCH of activity (from a portal or gate monitor standpoint) even after 7-10 half-lives.
Regarding Peter's issue on homeland security, it's a very valid point. As I recall, I think the current plan is to start having nuc med groups issue the equivalent of our "portal pass" that indicates that the person has had a nuclear medicine treatment. Also, if homeland security sticks with the FEMA alarm setpoints of 1 uCi that will reduce the impacts. Most power plants set their portals to alarm at somewhere around 100 nCi.
Hope this provided some useful information.
Linda
Linda Sewell, CHP
Dosimetry Supervisor
Diablo Canyon Power Plant
MS 119/1/122
PO Box 56
Avila Beach, CA 93424
805.545.4315 (voice)
805.545.2618 (fax)
mailto:lms1@pge.com
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu]On Behalf Of
Peter.Vernig@MED.VA.GOV
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 12:26 PM
To: Radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
Subject: A Question for Power Reactor Types and others with portal
monitors.
Group,
I have been pondering the issue of Nuclear Medicine patients setting off
Homeland Security radiation detectors.
There apparently have been scattered incidents so far but NRC published an
information notice on it suggesting a verbal explanation and a business card
be given to patients that could set off such alarms.
I did an impromptu, very quick and VERY dirty test using about 850 uCi of
Tc-99m behind my back [to simulate in the body rather than a point source
and set off waste alarms at about ten feet (3m).
Among the challenges in trying to inform patients and security personnel is
how long a patient may set off an alarm. We have had personnel here receive
a heart study using Tl-201, usual dose 4 or 5 mCi, trip our waste alarm at
"almost a month" after the procedure.
I am slow on the uptake but I just realized this is something I have heard
about at power plants and DOE facilities using portal monitoring systems.
Can any of you out there give me any information about how long people that
have had NM studies continue to trip portal monitors. Any publications that
address this?
Any opinions expressed in this message are mine alone and do not necessarily
represent those of the Eastern Colorado VA Health Care System, The
Department of Veterans Affairs, or the United States Government.
Peter G. Vernig
Radiation Safety Officer, VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, 1055
Clermont St. Denver, CO 80220, ATTN: RSO MS 115; peter.vernig@med.va.gov;
personal peter_vernig@hotmail.com; 303.399.8020 ext. 2447, FAX: 303.393-5026
Alternate fax 303-377-5686
"...whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is
pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is found to be
excellent or praiseworthy, let your mind dwell on these things."
Paul of Tarsus
************************************************************************
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: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 12:10:57 -0500
From: Peter.Vernig@MED.VA.GOV
Subject: RE: A Question for Power Reactor Types and others with portal mon itors.
Linda,
Thanks for the information. But I have to say two things about issuing
"passes". First that is the reason for the question to put a duration in
for security personnel. Second, it will not be a pass. Security personnel
are unlikely to just accept a letter or information sheet at face value and
let the person go without any checking. Personally, though I don't put much
stock in the dirty bomb scenario, I don't think they should. Hopefully,
personnel will be well trained and have access to appropriate survey
equipment. A recent response I got indicates that border guards seem to
handle the situation fairly well, asking persons in a bus if anybody has had
a nuclear medicine procedure, have any identified person go through the
portal separately, then the other passengers, then the bus or other vehicle.
But I don't think it is a big stretch of imagination to say we are probably
going to be seeing more radiation survey equipment installed in various
places, say federal court houses, airline passenger terminals, you can guess
as good as I can.
Which brings up a point, seems to me I read an article either attached or
with a link attached about a lady reporter in Washington D.C. who was
stopped by a Metro [subway] police officer after having had a Nuclear
Medicine diagnostic procedure. Can anyone tell me where I might of read
that, a reference with date and publication would be WONDERFUL! I should
have printed it out when I read it.
Anyway I don't think the security people are just going to accept a letter
or information sheet at face value, without some checking. Anything we can
do to provide a letter or information sheet can easily be duplicated by
someone else, including a call back number. The answer IMO is good training
for the security personnel and so far, it seems like they have it.
Any opinions expressed in this message are mine alone and do not necessarily
represent those of the Eastern Colorado VA Health Care System, The
Department of Veterans Affairs, or the United States Government.
Peter G. Vernig
Radiation Safety Officer, VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, 1055
Clermont St. Denver, CO 80220, ATTN: RSO MS 115; peter.vernig@med.va.gov;
personal peter_vernig@hotmail.com; 303.399.8020 ext. 2447, FAX: 303.393-5026
Alternate fax 303-377-5686
"...whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is
pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is found to be
excellent or praiseworthy, let your mind dwell on these things."
Paul of Tarsus
- -----Original Message-----
From: Sewell, Linda [mailto:LMS1@pge.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 10:32 AM
To: Peter.Vernig@MED.VA.GOV; Radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
Subject: RE: A Question for Power Reactor Types and others with portal
monitors.
Greetings All,
Nuclear Medicine patients have been an issue at power plants for years since
most of us have portal monitors at the exit to our protected area, not just
the radiologically controlled areas. We've had 16 folks in our "portal
pass" program in the past year and we employee approximately 1100 people.
We have found that Tc-99 alarms our portals for 1-3 weeks. I think it
really depends on how much Mo-99 there is as a contaminant.
Tl-201 is typically less than a week but is dependent on what it's being
used for.
I-123 used for thyroid scans is gone pretty quickly, within a few days.
I-131 for partial or complete thyroid ablation is a problem for 1 - 3 MONTHS
and a dose rate issue for closely located co-workers for a few days.
We are starting to see F-18 and Ga-67 a bit now, but don't really have any
good data yet.
Another one that is generally only an issue if your lower energy thresholds
are set below 80 KeV or so are the prostate cancer seeds. The I-125 seeds
are fairly straightforward but the Pd-103 seeds have a significant Zn-65
contaminant which can cause problems. If the monitors "see" that low, the
seeds are an issue for 1-3 years.
Several of our workers have indicated that they were setting off the
incoming gate alarms at our local landfill.
A common thread throughout which confuses the matter is that the folks doing
the tests routinely tell the people that we'll never see it or that it will
be gone in just a day or two. The bottom line is, as well all know, if you
start off with a BUNCH of activity (millicuries) you still have a BUNCH of
activity (from a portal or gate monitor standpoint) even after 7-10
half-lives.
Regarding Peter's issue on homeland security, it's a very valid point. As I
recall, I think the current plan is to start having nuc med groups issue the
equivalent of our "portal pass" that indicates that the person has had a
nuclear medicine treatment. Also, if homeland security sticks with the FEMA
alarm setpoints of 1 uCi that will reduce the impacts. Most power plants
set their portals to alarm at somewhere around 100 nCi.
Hope this provided some useful information.
Linda
Linda Sewell, CHP
Dosimetry Supervisor
Diablo Canyon Power Plant
MS 119/1/122
PO Box 56
Avila Beach, CA 93424
805.545.4315 (voice)
805.545.2618 (fax)
mailto:lms1@pge.com
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu]On Behalf Of
Peter.Vernig@MED.VA.GOV
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 12:26 PM
To: Radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
Subject: A Question for Power Reactor Types and others with portal
monitors.
Group,
I have been pondering the issue of Nuclear Medicine patients setting off
Homeland Security radiation detectors.
There apparently have been scattered incidents so far but NRC published an
information notice on it suggesting a verbal explanation and a business card
be given to patients that could set off such alarms.
I did an impromptu, very quick and VERY dirty test using about 850 uCi of
Tc-99m behind my back [to simulate in the body rather than a point source
and set off waste alarms at about ten feet (3m).
Among the challenges in trying to inform patients and security personnel is
how long a patient may set off an alarm. We have had personnel here receive
a heart study using Tl-201, usual dose 4 or 5 mCi, trip our waste alarm at
"almost a month" after the procedure.
I am slow on the uptake but I just realized this is something I have heard
about at power plants and DOE facilities using portal monitoring systems.
Can any of you out there give me any information about how long people that
have had NM studies continue to trip portal monitors. Any publications that
address this?
Any opinions expressed in this message are mine alone and do not necessarily
represent those of the Eastern Colorado VA Health Care System, The
Department of Veterans Affairs, or the United States Government.
Peter G. Vernig
Radiation Safety Officer, VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, 1055
Clermont St. Denver, CO 80220, ATTN: RSO MS 115; peter.vernig@med.va.gov;
personal peter_vernig@hotmail.com; 303.399.8020 ext. 2447, FAX: 303.393-5026
Alternate fax 303-377-5686
"...whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is
pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is found to be
excellent or praiseworthy, let your mind dwell on these things."
Paul of Tarsus
************************************************************************
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: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 10:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: RE: A Question for Power Reactor Types and others with portal monitors.
The radionuclide used in about 95% of the nuclear
medicine scans is Tc-99m, not Tc-99 which is a beta
emitter. The concentration of Mo-99, with a half-life
of 2.75 days, that is allowed to be administered to
is 0.15 microcuries per millicurie of Tc-99m. I have
never seen any Mo-99 concentrations in patient doses.
As your mention, the real issues is how sensitive is
your detectors. If a patient is given a bone scan
with 30 mCi of Tc-99m, after 3 days there may still be
7 microcuries of activity present.
Tl-201 is only used for heart scans. While it is has
a half life of 3 days, there are Tl-202 and Tl204
contaminates. However, you do not retain thallium
chloride.
- --- "Sewell, Linda" <LMS1@PGE.COM> wrote:
> Greetings All,
>
> Nuclear Medicine patients have been an issue at
> power plants for years since most of us have portal
> monitors at the exit to our protected area, not just
> the radiologically controlled areas. We've had 16
> folks in our "portal pass" program in the past year
> and we employee approximately 1100 people.
>
> We have found that Tc-99 alarms our portals for 1-3
> weeks. I think it really depends on how much Mo-99
> there is as a contaminant.
>
> Tl-201 is typically less than a week but is
> dependent on what it's being used for.
>
> I-123 used for thyroid scans is gone pretty quickly,
> within a few days.
>
> I-131 for partial or complete thyroid ablation is a
> problem for 1 - 3 MONTHS and a dose rate issue for
> closely located co-workers for a few days.
>
> We are starting to see F-18 and Ga-67 a bit now, but
> don't really have any good data yet.
>
> Another one that is generally only an issue if your
> lower energy thresholds are set below 80 KeV or so
> are the prostate cancer seeds. The I-125 seeds are
> fairly straightforward but the Pd-103 seeds have a
> significant Zn-65 contaminant which can cause
> problems. If the monitors "see" that low, the seeds
> are an issue for 1-3 years.
>
> Several of our workers have indicated that they were
> setting off the incoming gate alarms at our local
> landfill.
>
> A common thread throughout which confuses the matter
> is that the folks doing the tests routinely tell the
> people that we'll never see it or that it will be
> gone in just a day or two. The bottom line is, as
> well all know, if you start off with a BUNCH of
> activity (millicuries) you still have a BUNCH of
> activity (from a portal or gate monitor standpoint)
> even after 7-10 half-lives.
>
> Regarding Peter's issue on homeland security, it's a
> very valid point. As I recall, I think the current
> plan is to start having nuc med groups issue the
> equivalent of our "portal pass" that indicates that
> the person has had a nuclear medicine treatment.
> Also, if homeland security sticks with the FEMA
> alarm setpoints of 1 uCi that will reduce the
> impacts. Most power plants set their portals to
> alarm at somewhere around 100 nCi.
>
> Hope this provided some useful information.
>
> Linda
>
> Linda Sewell, CHP
> Dosimetry Supervisor
> Diablo Canyon Power Plant
> MS 119/1/122
> PO Box 56
> Avila Beach, CA 93424
> 805.545.4315 (voice)
> 805.545.2618 (fax)
> mailto:lms1@pge.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
> [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu]On Behalf
> Of
> Peter.Vernig@MED.VA.GOV
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 12:26 PM
> To: Radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
> Subject: A Question for Power Reactor Types and
> others with portal
> monitors.
>
>
> Group,
>
> I have been pondering the issue of Nuclear Medicine
> patients setting off
> Homeland Security radiation detectors.
>
> There apparently have been scattered incidents so
> far but NRC published an
> information notice on it suggesting a verbal
> explanation and a business card
> be given to patients that could set off such alarms.
>
> I did an impromptu, very quick and VERY dirty test
> using about 850 uCi of
> Tc-99m behind my back [to simulate in the body
> rather than a point source
> and set off waste alarms at about ten feet (3m).
>
> Among the challenges in trying to inform patients
> and security personnel is
> how long a patient may set off an alarm. We have
> had personnel here receive
> a heart study using Tl-201, usual dose 4 or 5 mCi,
> trip our waste alarm at
> "almost a month" after the procedure.
>
> I am slow on the uptake but I just realized this is
> something I have heard
> about at power plants and DOE facilities using
> portal monitoring systems.
> Can any of you out there give me any information
> about how long people that
> have had NM studies continue to trip portal
> monitors. Any publications that
> address this?
>
>
> Any opinions expressed in this message are mine
> alone and do not necessarily
> represent those of the Eastern Colorado VA Health
> Care System, The
> Department of Veterans Affairs, or the United States
> Government.
>
> Peter G. Vernig
> Radiation Safety Officer, VA Eastern Colorado Health
> Care System, 1055
> Clermont St. Denver, CO 80220, ATTN: RSO MS 115;
> peter.vernig@med.va.gov;
> personal peter_vernig@hotmail.com; 303.399.8020 ext.
> 2447, FAX: 303.393-5026
> Alternate fax 303-377-5686
> "...whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is
> right, whatever is
> pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if
> anything is found to be
> excellent or praiseworthy, let your mind dwell on
> these things."
> Paul of Tarsus
>
>
************************************************************************
> 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/
>
=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"Those who have not known the joy of standing up for a great cause of justice have not known what makes living worthwhile."
Paul Painleve, regarding the Dreyfus Affair, 1895
- -- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
************************************************************************
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: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 10:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: RE: A Question for Power Reactor Types and others with portal mon itors.
Besides patients, you will also have the problem of
radionuclide delivers to hospitals. This happened a
few years ago in New York City when police using
hand-held detectors were "cruising" around the city
looking for bombs.
- --- Peter.Vernig@MED.VA.GOV wrote:
> Linda,
>
> Thanks for the information. But I have to say two
> things about issuing
> "passes". First that is the reason for the question
> to put a duration in
> for security personnel. Second, it will not be a
> pass. Security personnel
> are unlikely to just accept a letter or information
> sheet at face value and
> let the person go without any checking. Personally,
> though I don't put much
> stock in the dirty bomb scenario, I don't think they
> should. Hopefully,
> personnel will be well trained and have access to
> appropriate survey
> equipment. A recent response I got indicates that
> border guards seem to
> handle the situation fairly well, asking persons in
> a bus if anybody has had
> a nuclear medicine procedure, have any identified
> person go through the
> portal separately, then the other passengers, then
> the bus or other vehicle.
>
> But I don't think it is a big stretch of imagination
> to say we are probably
> going to be seeing more radiation survey equipment
> installed in various
> places, say federal court houses, airline passenger
> terminals, you can guess
> as good as I can.
>
> Which brings up a point, seems to me I read an
> article either attached or
> with a link attached about a lady reporter in
> Washington D.C. who was
> stopped by a Metro [subway] police officer after
> having had a Nuclear
> Medicine diagnostic procedure. Can anyone tell me
> where I might of read
> that, a reference with date and publication would be
> WONDERFUL! I should
> have printed it out when I read it.
>
> Anyway I don't think the security people are just
> going to accept a letter
> or information sheet at face value, without some
> checking. Anything we can
> do to provide a letter or information sheet can
> easily be duplicated by
> someone else, including a call back number. The
> answer IMO is good training
> for the security personnel and so far, it seems like
> they have it.
>
> Any opinions expressed in this message are mine
> alone and do not necessarily
> represent those of the Eastern Colorado VA Health
> Care System, The
> Department of Veterans Affairs, or the United States
> Government.
>
> Peter G. Vernig
> Radiation Safety Officer, VA Eastern Colorado Health
> Care System, 1055
> Clermont St. Denver, CO 80220, ATTN: RSO MS 115;
> peter.vernig@med.va.gov;
> personal peter_vernig@hotmail.com; 303.399.8020 ext.
> 2447, FAX: 303.393-5026
> Alternate fax 303-377-5686
> "...whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is
> right, whatever is
> pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if
> anything is found to be
> excellent or praiseworthy, let your mind dwell on
> these things."
> Paul of Tarsus
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sewell, Linda [mailto:LMS1@pge.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 10:32 AM
> To: Peter.Vernig@MED.VA.GOV;
> Radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
> Subject: RE: A Question for Power Reactor Types and
> others with portal
> monitors.
>
>
> Greetings All,
>
> Nuclear Medicine patients have been an issue at
> power plants for years since
> most of us have portal monitors at the exit to our
> protected area, not just
> the radiologically controlled areas. We've had 16
> folks in our "portal
> pass" program in the past year and we employee
> approximately 1100 people.
>
> We have found that Tc-99 alarms our portals for 1-3
> weeks. I think it
> really depends on how much Mo-99 there is as a
> contaminant.
>
> Tl-201 is typically less than a week but is
> dependent on what it's being
> used for.
>
> I-123 used for thyroid scans is gone pretty quickly,
> within a few days.
>
> I-131 for partial or complete thyroid ablation is a
> problem for 1 - 3 MONTHS
> and a dose rate issue for closely located co-workers
> for a few days.
>
> We are starting to see F-18 and Ga-67 a bit now, but
> don't really have any
> good data yet.
>
> Another one that is generally only an issue if your
> lower energy thresholds
> are set below 80 KeV or so are the prostate cancer
> seeds. The I-125 seeds
> are fairly straightforward but the Pd-103 seeds have
> a significant Zn-65
> contaminant which can cause problems. If the
> monitors "see" that low, the
> seeds are an issue for 1-3 years.
>
> Several of our workers have indicated that they were
> setting off the
> incoming gate alarms at our local landfill.
>
> A common thread throughout which confuses the matter
> is that the folks doing
> the tests routinely tell the people that we'll never
> see it or that it will
> be gone in just a day or two. The bottom line is,
> as well all know, if you
> start off with a BUNCH of activity (millicuries) you
> still have a BUNCH of
> activity (from a portal or gate monitor standpoint)
> even after 7-10
> half-lives.
>
> Regarding Peter's issue on homeland security, it's a
> very valid point. As I
> recall, I think the current plan is to start having
> nuc med groups issue the
> equivalent of our "portal pass" that indicates that
> the person has had a
> nuclear medicine treatment. Also, if homeland
> security sticks with the FEMA
> alarm setpoints of 1 uCi that will reduce the
> impacts. Most power plants
> set their portals to alarm at somewhere around 100
> nCi.
>
> Hope this provided some useful information.
>
> Linda
>
> Linda Sewell, CHP
> Dosimetry Supervisor
> Diablo Canyon Power Plant
> MS 119/1/122
> PO Box 56
> Avila Beach, CA 93424
> 805.545.4315 (voice)
> 805.545.2618 (fax)
> mailto:lms1@pge.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
> [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu]On Behalf
> Of
> Peter.Vernig@MED.VA.GOV
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 12:26 PM
> To: Radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
> Subject: A Question for Power Reactor Types and
> others with portal
> monitors.
>
>
> Group,
>
> I have been pondering the issue of Nuclear Medicine
> patients setting off
> Homeland Security radiation detectors.
>
> There apparently have been scattered incidents so
> far but NRC published an
> information notice on it suggesting a verbal
> explanation and a business card
> be given to patients that could set off such alarms.
>
> I did an impromptu, very quick and VERY dirty test
> using
=== message truncated ===
=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"Those who have not known the joy of standing up for a great cause of justice have not known what makes living worthwhile."
Paul Painleve, regarding the Dreyfus Affair, 1895
- -- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
************************************************************************
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 #1086
******************************
***********************************************************************
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/