From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jun 1 00:02:37 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed Jun 1 00:02:49 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Commentary: Nuclear Weapons reality -- Acceptance? Message-ID: <20050531220237.21716.qmail@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> >From BusinessWeek On-line at http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_22/b3935148.htm -------------------- MAY 30, 2005 GOVERNMENT Commentary: Back To The Cold War? Facing up to the awful reality of rogue nations with nukes Iran may soon acquire the ability to enrich uranium, paving the way for a nuclear arsenal. North Korea claims it already has the bomb -- and is reprocessing spent fuel to make more. Could sanctions make the nuclear upstarts stop in their tracks? Probably not. China and South Korea are balking: They don't want sanctions to drive North Korea over the brink. As for Iran, the U.S. and Europe can't see eye to eye on when or whether to apply sanctions at all. What should Washington do? Well, here's a radical approach: Accept the reality of a nuclear North Korea and Iran, and let them join the nuclear club. That sounds like anathema to U.S. policymakers. The Bush Administration, after all, has gone out of its way to depict North Korea and Iran as the most roguish of rogue states. Acknowledging their new role as nuclear powers would seem to mark a capitulation and set a dangerous precedent. But years of threats by the U.S. have done nothing to curb these states' nuclear ambitions, and may even have strengthened them. There has to be a better way to deal with North Korea and Iran, and perhaps it can be found in the U.S. experience of the Cold War. That 40-year standoff was a scary time, but nuclear war never broke out. One reason was the U.S. pledge to retaliate massively against any nuclear attack by Russia or China. This approach, which evolved into the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), made it clear how the U.S. would act if the missiles started flying. Another U.S. strategy during the Cold War did not involve missiles. It tacitly acknowledged that the other side had a right to exist. Yes, the U.S. propaganda machine regularly lambasted Russia and China for decades, but no Administration made a serious effort to bring either regime down. Although the U.S. never officially renounced the option of striking first in a nuclear exchange, everyone knew a first strike was far down on the list of possibilities. It was also understood that if certain rules were observed by all sides, a nuclear launch would never occur. Later, with the advent of détente in the Nixon Administration, dialogue and engagement were even possible. Contrast this history with the behavior of the Bush Administration, and you see what it can learn from the Cold War. The Administration already has its version of MAD down pat. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan makes it clear that Washington will strike back hard against attackers and will topple hostile regimes. Get-Tough Strategy Yet the White House has also violated Cold War tenets by explicitly adopting the prospect of striking first, with conventional or other forces, as part of its get-tough strategy with rogue states. And the Bush team regularly calls for regime change for the remaining members of the Axis of Evil. Such rhetoric has put both North Korea and Iran in a corner and given them a perfect pretext for keeping their nuclear options open. "You have to admit they have a point," says Joseph Cirincione, an arms-control expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. A quiet retreat from the idea of regime change could do what all the saber-rattling of the past two years has failed to achieve: arrive at a new nuclear equilibrium. Leaving nukes in the hands of erratic leaders in Tehran and Pyongyang certainly doesn't look like a great idea. But the conventional wisdom about these regimes may be wrong. The mullahs "are not suicidal," notes Robert J. Einhorn of the Center for Strategic & International Studies. Adds Shai Feldman, a Mideast expert at Brandeis University: "Iran is not Iraq. The Iranian regime is not prone to adventures or miscalculation." North Korea may be more inclined that way than Iran, but it's not suicidal, either. While Dear Leader Kim Jong Il uses brinksmanship in negotiations, regime preservation is its central motive. Attacking U.S. troops or U.S. allies runs counter to that goal. Kenneth N. Waltz, a Columbia University nuclear-arms expert, says leaders such as Kim "have proved very good at figuring out where the line is that, if crossed, will cause great damage to their country." Recently translated documents from the Warsaw Pact governments make it clear that North Korea's leaders have long wanted the bomb for security reasons, not for blackmail. Besides, there's already evidence that when the U.S. abandons demands for regime change, a substantial payoff can result. Libya turned over its weapons program last year after "a tacit assurance of regime survival," notes Robert Litwak, a nonproliferation expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. What could go wrong with such a policy shift? For starters, taking the pressure off North Korea and Iran would obviously conflict with the Bush team's laudable push to establish democracies worldwide. It would also seem to abandon the Iranian and North Korean people to despotic regimes. But the reality on the ground is more complex. In Iran, the nuclear program is genuinely popular, even among the many Iranians well-disposed toward the U.S. So an American policy of active opposition to Iran's nuclear program, coupled with calls for regime change, strengthens the hand of the most reactionary members of the mullahs' regime. North Korea is a trickier case. But the Bush policy to date has not delivered any improvement in human rights in that country. Achieving some sort of thaw with Pyongyang might at least create the opportunity to open that country to the world -- and increase the chances for meaningful dialogue. The biggest danger of a tacit acceptance of a nuclear Iran and North Korea is that it would kick off a global arms race. Accepting Iranian and North Korean bombs could encourage others to follow suit, especially Japan and possibly Saudi Arabia, which would feel the most threatened from their neighbors' truculence. But even as policymakers contemplate this dilemma today, the Cold War experience of the U.S. offers some guidance. As the tension between Moscow and the U.S. deepened, high-profile strategic alliances brought friendly countries under the American nuclear umbrella. That arrangement made it unnecessary for frontline states such as West Germany to develop nuclear weapons on their own. Similar guarantees for countries like Japan could have the same effect today, and could keep another arms race from starting. New global arms accords would help, too. The Bush team trashes these accords because some nations have cheated on those Cold War-era treaties meant to curb the spread of nuclear weapons. But scores of other countries did comply. That compliance kept the nuclear club from expanding to 25 by the mid-1970s, as an alarmed President Kennedy predicted it would a decade earlier. Changing policy toward North Korea and Iran won't remove the threat from these regimes overnight. Then again, the Cold War wasn't won immediately either. But the right combination of containment and diplomacy may yet win this new contest for the U.S. By Stan Crock Copyright 2000-2004, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Notice +++++++++++++++++++ "Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought." Hugh Blair, 1783 -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From hflong at pacbell.net Wed Jun 1 02:43:37 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Wed Jun 1 02:43:48 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Weapons Acceptance? In-Reply-To: <20050531220237.21716.qmail@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050601004337.16203.qmail@web81803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Missile defense and civil defense were opposed by these same sweet-talkers who did NOT mean "Business". Tyrants knew it! "If you would have peace, be prepared for war." G Washington (approx). So far, the Bush Doctrine is working in Lybia, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ukraine, etc. Bush Doctrine minimizes liklihood that HPs will be frantically showing people where to escape lethal doses and calming fears about 10 cSv exposures. Howard Long. John Jacobus wrote: >From BusinessWeek On-line at http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_22/b3935148.htm -------------------- MAY 30, 2005 GOVERNMENT Commentary: Back To The Cold War? Facing up to the awful reality of rogue nations with nukes Iran may soon acquire the ability to enrich uranium, paving the way for a nuclear arsenal. North Korea claims it already has the bomb -- and is reprocessing spent fuel to make more. Could sanctions make the nuclear upstarts stop in their tracks? Probably not. China and South Korea are balking: They don't want sanctions to drive North Korea over the brink. As for Iran, the U.S. and Europe can't see eye to eye on when or whether to apply sanctions at all. What should Washington do? Well, here's a radical approach: Accept the reality of a nuclear North Korea and Iran, and let them join the nuclear club. That sounds like anathema to U.S. policymakers. The Bush Administration, after all, has gone out of its way to depict North Korea and Iran as the most roguish of rogue states. Acknowledging their new role as nuclear powers would seem to mark a capitulation and set a dangerous precedent. But years of threats by the U.S. have done nothing to curb these states' nuclear ambitions, and may even have strengthened them. There has to be a better way to deal with North Korea and Iran, and perhaps it can be found in the U.S. experience of the Cold War. That 40-year standoff was a scary time, but nuclear war never broke out. One reason was the U.S. pledge to retaliate massively against any nuclear attack by Russia or China. This approach, which evolved into the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), made it clear how the U.S. would act if the missiles started flying. Another U.S. strategy during the Cold War did not involve missiles. It tacitly acknowledged that the other side had a right to exist. Yes, the U.S. propaganda machine regularly lambasted Russia and China for decades, but no Administration made a serious effort to bring either regime down. Although the U.S. never officially renounced the option of striking first in a nuclear exchange, everyone knew a first strike was far down on the list of possibilities. It was also understood that if certain rules were observed by all sides, a nuclear launch would never occur. Later, with the advent of détente in the Nixon Administration, dialogue and engagement were even possible. Contrast this history with the behavior of the Bush Administration, and you see what it can learn from the Cold War. The Administration already has its version of MAD down pat. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan makes it clear that Washington will strike back hard against attackers and will topple hostile regimes. Get-Tough Strategy Yet the White House has also violated Cold War tenets by explicitly adopting the prospect of striking first, with conventional or other forces, as part of its get-tough strategy with rogue states. And the Bush team regularly calls for regime change for the remaining members of the Axis of Evil. Such rhetoric has put both North Korea and Iran in a corner and given them a perfect pretext for keeping their nuclear options open. "You have to admit they have a point," says Joseph Cirincione, an arms-control expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. A quiet retreat from the idea of regime change could do what all the saber-rattling of the past two years has failed to achieve: arrive at a new nuclear equilibrium. Leaving nukes in the hands of erratic leaders in Tehran and Pyongyang certainly doesn't look like a great idea. But the conventional wisdom about these regimes may be wrong. The mullahs "are not suicidal," notes Robert J. Einhorn of the Center for Strategic & International Studies. Adds Shai Feldman, a Mideast expert at Brandeis University: "Iran is not Iraq. The Iranian regime is not prone to adventures or miscalculation." North Korea may be more inclined that way than Iran, but it's not suicidal, either. While Dear Leader Kim Jong Il uses brinksmanship in negotiations, regime preservation is its central motive. Attacking U.S. troops or U.S. allies runs counter to that goal. Kenneth N. Waltz, a Columbia University nuclear-arms expert, says leaders such as Kim "have proved very good at figuring out where the line is that, if crossed, will cause great damage to their country." Recently translated documents from the Warsaw Pact governments make it clear that North Korea's leaders have long wanted the bomb for security reasons, not for blackmail. Besides, there's already evidence that when the U.S. abandons demands for regime change, a substantial payoff can result. Libya turned over its weapons program last year after "a tacit assurance of regime survival," notes Robert Litwak, a nonproliferation expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. What could go wrong with such a policy shift? For starters, taking the pressure off North Korea and Iran would obviously conflict with the Bush team's laudable push to establish democracies worldwide. It would also seem to abandon the Iranian and North Korean people to despotic regimes. But the reality on the ground is more complex. In Iran, the nuclear program is genuinely popular, even among the many Iranians well-disposed toward the U.S. So an American policy of active opposition to Iran's nuclear program, coupled with calls for regime change, strengthens the hand of the most reactionary members of the mullahs' regime. North Korea is a trickier case. But the Bush policy to date has not delivered any improvement in human rights in that country. Achieving some sort of thaw with Pyongyang might at least create the opportunity to open that country to the world -- and increase the chances for meaningful dialogue. The biggest danger of a tacit acceptance of a nuclear Iran and North Korea is that it would kick off a global arms race. Accepting Iranian and North Korean bombs could encourage others to follow suit, especially Japan and possibly Saudi Arabia, which would feel the most threatened from their neighbors' truculence. But even as policymakers contemplate this dilemma today, the Cold War experience of the U.S. offers some guidance. As the tension between Moscow and the U.S. deepened, high-profile strategic alliances brought friendly countries under the American nuclear umbrella. That arrangement made it unnecessary for frontline states such as West Germany to develop nuclear weapons on their own. Similar guarantees for countries like Japan could have the same effect today, and could keep another arms race from starting. New global arms accords would help, too. The Bush team trashes these accords because some nations have cheated on those Cold War-era treaties meant to curb the spread of nuclear weapons. But scores of other countries did comply. That compliance kept the nuclear club from expanding to 25 by the mid-1970s, as an alarmed President Kennedy predicted it would a decade earlier. Changing policy toward North Korea and Iran won't remove the threat from these regimes overnight. Then again, the Cold War wasn't won immediately either. But the right combination of containment and diplomacy may yet win this new contest for the U.S. By Stan Crock Copyright 2000-2004, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Notice From jskowronek at ietu.katowice.pl Wed Jun 1 07:17:20 2005 From: jskowronek at ietu.katowice.pl (Jan Skowronek) Date: Wed Jun 1 07:19:05 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk In-Reply-To: <429CC6D4.4090303@pitt.edu> Message-ID: In general, there is a strong negative correlation between UF and the ratio of WL/r (equilibrium factor), or .UF x WL/r = K, another constant. In case of radon progeny (in mines, buildings and other closed areas) you have to take into account the plateout effect of radon propgeny on e.g. walls, engines etc. - it means that this equation is not valid. In mines, there is so much dust that one can assume UF = 0, Basing on Polish experience - it is not true. We found in underground coal mine some places where UF concentration in air reach 20% (average 5.7%) of Rn progeny concentration (see proceedings of TENR International Conference in Szczyrk, Poland, 1996 - available in Central Mining Institute in Katowice) Moreover, it is much easier to measure r than to measure WL. That is why everyone measures r. . In Polish mines WL (expressed as potential alpha energy concentration of short lived radon progeny - PAEC, microJoules per cubic meter) is measured, not radon concentration. We measure simultaneously the dust concentration and PAEC, using the typical dust sampler and sampling probe ALFA-31 or ALFA-2000 for radon progeny. dr hab. inz. Jan SKOWRONEK Instytut Ekologii Teren?w Uprzemyslowionych Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas ul. Kossutha 6 40-844 Katowice/Poland tel.: (+48-32) 2540164 fax: (+48-32) 2541717 e-mail: jskowronek@ietu.katowice.pl -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Bernard Cohen Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:20 PM To: Franz Sch?nhofer Cc: 'Otto G. Raabe'; 'Bernard Cohen'; radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: >"Why do you ignore my response.....", just a copied phrase from your mail. >Do you believe that it is below your scientific level to answer my clearly >formulated criticism? Why do you still mention average county radon levels >in this post? > ---Your message was not addressed to me specifically and was not about my work specifically, so I did not feel obligated to respond, butI will respond here. The health effects of radon depend basically on three things, radon gas concentration -r, concentration of radon daughters --WL (working level), and unattached fraction -UF (fraction of radon daughters not attached to a dust particle - this is important because these have a much greater probability of sticking to the bronchial surfaces). In mines, there is so much dust that one can assume UF = 0, so measuring WL gives the health effects. In homes, this is not so. As an example, one can drastically reduce the WL by removing the dust (for example, with an electrostatic precipitator), but the newly formed radon daughters have no dust to attach to, so UF = 1.0, and the danger is not reduced. Roughly, health effects, HE = k x WL x UF.where k is a constant In general, there is a strong negative correlation between UF and the ratio of WL/r (equilibrium factor), or .UF x WL/r = K, another constant. Combining these two equations, HE = k x K x r, or health effects are proportional to r, HE = k' r. Detailed studies have confirmed this result, and shown that it is much more accurate than assuming HE = k'' x WL. (k' and k'' are new constants) Ideally, one should measure WL and UF, but that is very difficult and is essentially never done. Moreover, it is much easier to measure r than to measure WL. That is why everyone measures r. . In my studies involving hundreds of thousands of measurements of r, it seems reasonable to assume that there is no strong systematic variation in the ratio of r to health effects. If you have reason to think that there might be such a systematic variation, please let me know. >I insist that it is more than unscientific to claim minor statistical >significance, when the data might be wrong by tens of percents. > >Sorry to say, that I have once admired your way of proofing that others are >incorrect, by using their data and showing that they are in disagreement >with the claimed results. I have used this tactic very often myself. > >In this case I believe that you are working with data (radon >concentrations), which are not directly related to your "results" - lung >cancer. > >Franz > > > > > > _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From GELSG at aol.com Wed Jun 1 07:35:57 2005 From: GELSG at aol.com (GELSG@aol.com) Date: Wed Jun 1 07:36:11 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk Message-ID: <218.1eb1933.2fcea33d@aol.com> Dr. Cohen: I generally agree with your work and conclusions on indoor radon. However, the statement below troubles me. In theory, in laboratory conditions, one can approach a UF of 1.0. However, (and I have seen very little data on this point) I have never heard of real world UFs of more than 0.1, much less 1.0. If you do have such data, I would like to see it. In my house, we always seem to have plenty of dust, even with the electrostatic precipitator running. I have always believed that, in the real world of opening doors and leaking windows and cooking and playing children, there will always be plenty of "replacement dust" particles. In that case, I would take exception with your conclusion about electrostatic precipitators, and state that they would be a very good means of reducing lung exposure to radon daughters in homes that are not laboratory glove boxes. As such, we should be actively encouraging, not discouraging, their use. Gerald Gels _blc+@pitt.edu_ (mailto:blc+@pitt.edu) wrote: "As an example, one can drastically reduce the WL by removing the dust (for example, with an electrostatic precipitator), but the newly formed radon daughters have no dust to attach to, so UF = 1.0, and the danger is not reduced." From srebro at bgumail.bgu.ac.il Wed Jun 1 08:37:07 2005 From: srebro at bgumail.bgu.ac.il (srebro) Date: Wed Jun 1 07:37:24 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation Safety management software Message-ID: <20050601053020.2E42033E7E@smtp2.bgu.ac.il> Hi I'm looking for radiation safety management software (not just records management). If you use software that was developed by your institution Can you tell me on what software it was build? ( oracle, access ..) Rafi Srebro RSO Ben-Gurion University From tariqbtahir at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 08:35:56 2005 From: tariqbtahir at gmail.com (Tariq Tahir) Date: Wed Jun 1 08:36:08 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Posters on Radiation Protection Message-ID: <4c3f7e00505312335578e2e9d@mail.gmail.com> I am looking for colourful and informative posters related to the following topics: ALARA, Contamination Control, Radiation Protection, Risk of Radiation, Biological effects of radiation, Background radiation, Use of Protective apparel, Waste minimization etc. The posters should be preferably in pdf format, available on the net for download and free for non-commercial use. Tariq B. Tahir Manager, HP KANUPP From sontermj at tpg.com.au Wed Jun 1 09:43:32 2005 From: sontermj at tpg.com.au (sontermj@tpg.com.au) Date: Wed Jun 1 09:43:44 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Norm Cohen's resurrection of the DU story In-Reply-To: <200505311634.j4VGUslW029176@radlab.nl> References: <200505311634.j4VGUslW029176@radlab.nl> Message-ID: <1117611812.429d67245ad72@postoffice.tpg.com.au> That interview -The Iconoclast- was the biggest load of hot snivelling ducktwaddle I have ever seen....... sceptical journalism - Not! Mark Sonter From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jun 1 14:48:20 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed Jun 1 14:48:31 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Norm Cohen's resurrection of the DU story In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050601124820.8038.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> Remember. Most news departments are under the entertainment departments. By the way, I did not read the whole article. How does it end? --- sontermj@tpg.com.au wrote: > That interview -The Iconoclast- was the biggest load > of hot snivelling ducktwaddle I have ever > seen....... > > sceptical journalism - Not! > > Mark Sonter > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing > list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have > read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be > found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe > and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought." Hugh Blair, 1783 -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pduport at uottawa.ca Wed Jun 1 15:31:03 2005 From: pduport at uottawa.ca (Philippe Duport) Date: Wed Jun 1 15:31:18 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk References: <218.1eb1933.2fcea33d@aol.com> Message-ID: <00e501c566ae$29103d80$318e7a89@Room30> Please see "Determination de la fraction libre d'activit? existant sous forme de RaA non attach? dans l'atmosph?re d'une mine d'uranium" by A. Chapuis, A. Lopez, J. Fontan, Health Physics Vol. 25, pp. 59-65 (1973). At that time, Health Physics accepted papers in French! The fact that some papers were published in French or in languages other than English does not imply that the research has not been done and the information does not exist. Chapuis et al report unattached fraction values from 1 or 2% close to an active stope, up to 15 to 20% without, or far enough from, active mining operations. Miners do not spend all their time in close proximity to active mining operations. I measured unattached fraction values of the order of 30% in an isolated, inactive part of an underground uranium mine with forced ventilation (P. Duport, G. Madelaine, A. Renoux. Mesure de la fraction libre dans l'air d'une mine d'uranium laboratoire, Chemosphere 4(5):283-288, 1975) - sorry, another paper in French. The unattached fraction is of course very sensitive to aerosol concentration, but it is a serious mistake to assume that it is always negligible in mines. Philippe Duport ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 1:35 AM Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk > Dr. Cohen: > > I generally agree with your work and conclusions on indoor radon. > However, > the statement below troubles me. In theory, in laboratory conditions, > one > can approach a UF of 1.0. However, (and I have seen very little data on > this > point) I have never heard of real world UFs of more than 0.1, much less > 1.0. > If you do have such data, I would like to see it. In my house, we always > seem to have plenty of dust, even with the electrostatic precipitator > running. > I have always believed that, in the real world of opening doors and > leaking > windows and cooking and playing children, there will always be plenty of > "replacement dust" particles. In that case, I would take exception with > your > conclusion about electrostatic precipitators, and state that they would > be a very > good means of reducing lung exposure to radon daughters in homes that are > not laboratory glove boxes. As such, we should be actively encouraging, > not > discouraging, their use. > > Gerald Gels > > _blc+@pitt.edu_ (mailto:blc+@pitt.edu) wrote: > "As an example, one > can drastically reduce the WL by removing the dust (for example, with an > electrostatic precipitator), but the newly formed radon daughters have > no dust to attach to, so UF = 1.0, and the danger is not reduced." > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From kali1 at zahav.net.il Wed Jun 1 15:54:21 2005 From: kali1 at zahav.net.il (kali1@zahav.net.il) Date: Wed Jun 1 15:54:42 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fw: dose-rates in the design of linear accelerator rooms Message-ID: <000701c566b1$6bea2a00$7e2019ac@user> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yehoshua Kalish" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 2:51 PM Subject: dose-rates in the design of linear accelerator rooms Dear friends, According to British guidelines, as outlined in "Medical and Dental Guidance Notes, a Good Practice Guide on all Aspects of Radiation Protection in Clinical Environment, Table 1.2, p. 9, 2002" in the design of a linear accelerator room, one is to consider not only the annual integral dose but also is limited by Time Averaged Dose Rate (TADR). The value of TADR for unsupervised public areas -- estimated over 8 hours, taking in account use and workload for the typical worst day case scenario (an occupancy factor of one is assumed) -- is less than 0.5 microsievert per hour (0.05 mrem per hour). I would appreciate answers to two questions: 1. How do British radsafers explain and justify bothering as to dose-rates where negligible doses are involved. 2. Why the above TADR value is not applied in the design of aeroplanes, where the TADR is some 10 times higher (Well, I don't really reccommend the use of 10 cm thick lead ceilings in planes; I would rather stop bothering as to dose-rates in the design of linear accelerator rooms}. Yehoshua Kalish Consultant, Hod-Hasharon, Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: ROBBARISH@aol.com To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 9:54 AM Subject: Solar particle event Dear friends at RADSAFE: For those who are interested, I have posted on my website a plot of the radiation dose rate at altitude during the large solar flare that occurred on 20 January. At its peak, the dose rate in a commercial airliner at 40,000 feet was 100 microsievert (10 mrem) per hour. You may see the data at: http://robbarish.tripod.com/events/ I am grateful to Dr. Wallace Friedberg of the FAA for supplying the information. Robert Barish, Ph.D., CHP robbarish@aol.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Primary archives and subscribers' interface for unsubscribing or changing subscription options: http://lists.wayne.edu/archives/medphys.html You can opt to receive Medphys in hot-linked HTML format. From GELSG at aol.com Wed Jun 1 15:55:08 2005 From: GELSG at aol.com (GELSG@aol.com) Date: Wed Jun 1 15:55:32 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk Message-ID: <210.1ee2e78.2fcf183c@aol.com> Phillipe: Thank you for the reference. I realize that under certain conditions of ventilation and filtration, the unattached fraction can range widely. However, my point was that using laboratory or mining data to discourage home use of electrostatic air cleaners may be a mistake. Gerald Gels In a message dated 6/1/2005 9:31:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, pduport@uottawa.ca writes: Please see "Determination de la fraction libre d'activit? existant sous forme de RaA non attach? dans l'atmosph?re d'une mine d'uranium" by A. Chapuis, A. Lopez, J. Fontan, Health Physics Vol. 25, pp. 59-65 (1973). At that time, Health Physics accepted papers in French! The fact that some papers were published in French or in languages other than English does not imply that the research has not been done and the information does not exist. Chapuis et al report unattached fraction values from 1 or 2% close to an active stope, up to 15 to 20% without, or far enough from, active mining operations. Miners do not spend all their time in close proximity to active mining operations. I measured unattached fraction values of the order of 30% in an isolated, inactive part of an underground uranium mine with forced ventilation (P. Duport, G. Madelaine, A. Renoux. Mesure de la fraction libre dans l'air d'une mine d'uranium laboratoire, Chemosphere 4(5):283-288, 1975) - sorry, another paper in French. The unattached fraction is of course very sensitive to aerosol concentration, but it is a serious mistake to assume that it is always negligible in mines. Philippe Duport From frantaj at aecl.ca Wed Jun 1 16:00:20 2005 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Wed Jun 1 16:00:38 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " White House Urges Oil Appropriations Be Given To Nuclear, Coal " Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A377@sps13.aecl.ca> So much for the "oil president" monicker..... Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ White House Urges Oil Appropriations Be Given To Nuclear, Coal Energy Washington Week Vol. 2, No. 22 1 June 2005 The Bush administration is criticizing the House-passed energy appropriations bill for underfunding several high priority programs, including a DOE program aimed at bringing new nuclear power plants online in the next several years; carbon sequestration research; and the international fusion reactor program. The White House is calling on appropriators to divert funds from oil and gas programs to increase funding for these coal and nuclear initiatives. The House May 24 passed the nearly $30-billion fiscal year 2006 energy and water spending bill (H.R. 2419) with no major changes to the version passed out of the Appropriations Committee. Just before the vote, the White House released a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) criticizing the bill. The Senate has yet to draft its appropriations bill, for which a markup is expected in June. "The administration is concerned . . . that the bill fails to adequately fund a number of initiatives crucial for advancing the Nation's interest, and does not reduce or eliminate funds for programs that have outlived their purpose or are lower priority," the SAP states. The administration is particularly upset that the House bill only provides DOE's Nuclear Power 2010 program with $46 million, $10 million shy of the budget request. President Bush is relying on new nuclear power as a key to his energy plan and the Nuclear 2010 program is the primary administration vehicle to subsidize nuclear utility efforts to navigate the new plant licensing process at NRC. DOE already has agreed to help two separate consortia with their combined construction and operating license application and there are other proposals pending. The SAP urges the House to fully fund the program by "redirecting funds from the oil-and-gas programs." The House bill reduces funding levels from last year's appropriations for the oil technology and natural gas technology programs, but does not terminate them, as the administration requested. The administration wants research and development funding for oil and gas drilling technologies phased out, seeking only $10 million for each program in FY-06 for costs associated with shuttering them and closing out contracts. The House bill funds the natural gas program at $33 million and does not call for its termination. The oil program is funded at $29 million and also is not terminated. The House bill cites concerns about "U.S. over-reliance on foreign oil imports and the pressure to increase greatly imports of natural gas" as validating the funding. The SAP asserts that the oil and gas programs are often duplicative of private sector R&D efforts. "The oil and gas industry has the financial incentives and resources to develop new ways to extract oil and gas from the ground more cheaply and safely, without taxpayer assistance," reads the SAP. The administration also disagrees with the bill's stance on carbon sequestration funding. The bill appropriates DOE's carbon sequestration program at $50 million, $17 million less than the administration requested. "The Committee believes this level of funding is sufficient to accomplish numerous pilot-scale capture tests. The program cannot absorb the scale of resources proposed in the request, and these resources are better utilized for other nearer-term technologies within the Fossil Energy R&D portfolio," the bill states. The administration wants the $17 million restored, arguing that carbon sequestration will "improve energy security, by expanding the use of clean coal technology." Lastly, the administration slams the bill for reducing by more than half the U.S. contribution to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Though the bill increases fusion research funding above the request, it redirects funds from ITER to domestic fusion R&D. The administration requested $50 million, but the House provided less than half. The bill warns DOE in the future to get funding from other Office of Science research funding, rather than trying to short-change domestic fusion research. "If the Department does not follow this guidance in its fiscal year 2007 budget submission, the Committee is prepared to eliminate all U.S. funding for the ITER project in the future," the bill reads. The SAP responds: "Such a significant reduction could harm the standing of the United States during the critical final phase of the international negotiations this summer and would result in unnecessary schedule delays and cost escalation." To the surprise of some observers, the administration remained silent on the nuclear waste storage plan offered by Rep. David Hobson (R-OH), chairman of the House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee. The bill meets the administration's fiscal year 2006 request to fund Yucca Mountain at $651 million, but it adds an additional $10 million that would be used by DOE to select one or more above ground interim storage sites and to begin moving nuclear waste there by next year. The administration touched only briefly on the topic of Yucca Mountain, noting it was pleased the House bill fully funded the project. The SAP urges a compromise over the administration budget proposal that would place the Nuclear Waste Fund off-budget. CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From blc+ at pitt.edu Wed Jun 1 16:12:36 2005 From: blc+ at pitt.edu (Bernard Cohen) Date: Wed Jun 1 16:06:41 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <429DC254.80703@pitt.edu> My knowledge is largely confined to U.S. mines and U.S. homes. In mines, WL is always measured and regulations are based on it. In homes, radon levels are always measured and regulations and government advisories are based on it. I believe the rationale for these practices is as I have stated; at least that is the rationale that motivates me. If WL were the important issue, I have shown that radon problems in homes would be very easily and cheaply solved by dust elimination gadgetry. I see no practical alternative to using radon levels as the important indicator for risk in homes. Nothing is perfect, but what is the alternative? Jan Skowronek wrote: > In general, there is a strong negative correlation between UF and >the ratio of WL/r (equilibrium factor), or .UF x WL/r = K, another >constant. > >In case of radon progeny (in mines, buildings and other closed areas) you >have to take into account the plateout effect of radon propgeny on e.g. >walls, engines etc. - it means that this equation is not valid. > > In mines, there is so much dust that one can assume UF = 0, > >Basing on Polish experience - it is not true. We found in underground coal >mine some places where UF concentration in air reach 20% (average 5.7%) of >Rn progeny concentration (see proceedings of TENR International Conference >in Szczyrk, Poland, 1996 - available in Central Mining Institute in >Katowice) > > Moreover, it is much easier to measure r >than to measure WL. That is why everyone measures r. . > >In Polish mines WL (expressed as potential alpha energy concentration of >short lived radon progeny - PAEC, microJoules per cubic meter) is measured, >not radon concentration. We measure simultaneously the dust concentration >and PAEC, using the typical dust sampler and sampling probe ALFA-31 or >ALFA-2000 for radon progeny. > > >dr hab. inz. Jan SKOWRONEK >Instytut Ekologii Teren?w Uprzemyslowionych >Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas >ul. Kossutha 6 >40-844 Katowice/Poland >tel.: (+48-32) 2540164 >fax: (+48-32) 2541717 >e-mail: jskowronek@ietu.katowice.pl > >-----Original Message----- >From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl]On Behalf >Of Bernard Cohen >Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:20 PM >To: Franz Sch?nhofer >Cc: 'Otto G. Raabe'; 'Bernard Cohen'; radsafe@radlab.nl >Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk > > > > >Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > > > >>"Why do you ignore my response.....", just a copied phrase from your mail. >>Do you believe that it is below your scientific level to answer my clearly >>formulated criticism? Why do you still mention average county radon levels >>in this post? >> >> >> > ---Your message was not addressed to me specifically and was >not about my work specifically, so I did not feel obligated to respond, >butI will respond here. > The health effects of radon depend basically on three things, radon >gas concentration -r, concentration of radon daughters --WL (working >level), and unattached fraction -UF (fraction of radon daughters not >attached to a dust particle - this is important because these have a >much greater probability of sticking to the bronchial surfaces). In >mines, there is so much dust that one can assume UF = 0, so measuring WL >gives the health effects. In homes, this is not so. As an example, one >can drastically reduce the WL by removing the dust (for example, with an >electrostatic precipitator), but the newly formed radon daughters have >no dust to attach to, so UF = 1.0, and the danger is not reduced. >Roughly, health effects, HE = k x WL x UF.where k is a constant > In general, there is a strong negative correlation between UF and >the ratio of WL/r (equilibrium factor), or .UF x WL/r = K, another >constant. Combining these two equations, HE = k x K x r, or health >effects are proportional to r, HE = k' r. Detailed studies have >confirmed this result, and shown that it is much more accurate than >assuming HE = k'' x WL. (k' and k'' are new constants) > Ideally, one should measure WL and UF, but that is very difficult >and is essentially never done. Moreover, it is much easier to measure r >than to measure WL. That is why everyone measures r. . > In my studies involving hundreds of thousands of measurements of r, >it seems reasonable to assume that there is no strong systematic >variation in the ratio of r to health effects. If you have reason to >think that there might be such a systematic variation, please let me know. > > > >>I insist that it is more than unscientific to claim minor statistical >>significance, when the data might be wrong by tens of percents. >> >>Sorry to say, that I have once admired your way of proofing that others are >>incorrect, by using their data and showing that they are in disagreement >>with the claimed results. I have used this tactic very often myself. >> >>In this case I believe that you are working with data (radon >>concentrations), which are not directly related to your "results" - lung >>cancer. >> >>Franz >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the >RadSafe rules. These can be found at: >http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: >http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > From blc+ at pitt.edu Wed Jun 1 16:24:19 2005 From: blc+ at pitt.edu (Bernard Cohen) Date: Wed Jun 1 16:18:09 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <429DC513.2040803@pitt.edu> Jan Skowronek wrote: > In general, there is a strong negative correlation between UF and >the ratio of WL/r (equilibrium factor), or .UF x WL/r = K, another >constant. > >In case of radon progeny (in mines, buildings and other closed areas) you >have to take into account the plateout effect of radon propgeny on e.g. >walls, engines etc. - it means that this equation is not valid. > > > ---Plate-out affects the ratio WL/r making this ratio different in different arrangements of rooms (volume, surface areas). But in any given arrangement, dust characteristics is an important factor and the relationship UF x WL/r = K is roughly valid. From blc+ at pitt.edu Wed Jun 1 16:40:03 2005 From: blc+ at pitt.edu (Bernard Cohen) Date: Wed Jun 1 16:33:51 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk In-Reply-To: <218.1eb1933.2fcea33d@aol.com> References: <218.1eb1933.2fcea33d@aol.com> Message-ID: <429DC8C3.7060802@pitt.edu> My personal research on this consisted of showing that dust eliminators drastically reduce WL in my own home. I have done this with several types of dust eliminators. My attempts to measure unattached fractions have not been convincing to me. There were published studies involving measurements of unattached fractions, of net effects of dust removal syatems, and they indicated very little reduction in radiation dose. Unfortunately, I don't remember the references -- I vaguely remember that the authors may have been from General Electric. Dade Moeller was pushing very hard at one time for electrostatic precipitators as a solution to the problem of radon in homes, but he made very little headway. It is my impression that this was because of the studies I refer to, so he may remember the references. GELSG@aol.com wrote: >Dr. Cohen: > >I generally agree with your work and conclusions on indoor radon. However, >the statement below troubles me. In theory, in laboratory conditions, one >can approach a UF of 1.0. However, (and I have seen very little data on this >point) I have never heard of real world UFs of more than 0.1, much less 1.0. >If you do have such data, I would like to see it. In my house, we always >seem to have plenty of dust, even with the electrostatic precipitator running. >I have always believed that, in the real world of opening doors and leaking >windows and cooking and playing children, there will always be plenty of >"replacement dust" particles. In that case, I would take exception with your >conclusion about electrostatic precipitators, and state that they would be a very >good means of reducing lung exposure to radon daughters in homes that are >not laboratory glove boxes. As such, we should be actively encouraging, not >discouraging, their use. > >Gerald Gels > >_blc+@pitt.edu_ (mailto:blc+@pitt.edu) wrote: >"As an example, one >can drastically reduce the WL by removing the dust (for example, with an >electrostatic precipitator), but the newly formed radon daughters have >no dust to attach to, so UF = 1.0, and the danger is not reduced." >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jun 1 16:34:59 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed Jun 1 16:35:12 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " White House Urges Oil Appropriations Be Given To Nuclear, Coal " In-Reply-To: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A377@sps13.aecl.ca> Message-ID: <20050601143459.73219.qmail@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Maybe if the administration did not request money for nuclear weapons development, there might be more research funds for nuclear power development. I remember when Republicans used to claim about "spend-thrift" administrations and rising deficits. So, what's the Bush's Administrations problem? --- "Franta, Jaroslav" wrote: > So much for the "oil president" monicker..... > > Jaro > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > White House Urges Oil Appropriations Be Given To > Nuclear, Coal > Energy Washington Week > Vol. 2, No. 22 > 1 June 2005 > > The Bush administration is criticizing the > House-passed energy > appropriations bill for underfunding several high > priority programs, > including a DOE program aimed at bringing new > nuclear power plants online in > the next several years; carbon sequestration > research; and the international > fusion reactor program. The White House is calling > on appropriators to > divert funds from oil and gas programs to increase > funding for these coal > and nuclear initiatives. > > The House May 24 passed the nearly $30-billion > fiscal year 2006 energy and > water spending bill (H.R. 2419) with no major > changes to the version passed > out of the Appropriations Committee. Just before the > vote, the White House > released a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) > criticizing the bill. > The Senate has yet to draft its appropriations bill, > for which a markup is > expected in June. > > "The administration is concerned . . . that the bill > fails to adequately > fund a number of initiatives crucial for advancing > the Nation's interest, > and does not reduce or eliminate funds for programs > that have outlived their > purpose or are lower priority," the SAP states. > > The administration is particularly upset that the > House bill only provides > DOE's Nuclear Power 2010 program with $46 million, > $10 million shy of the > budget request. President Bush is relying on new > nuclear power as a key to > his energy plan and the Nuclear 2010 program is the > primary administration > vehicle to subsidize nuclear utility efforts to > navigate the new plant > licensing process at NRC. DOE already has agreed to > help two separate > consortia with their combined construction and > operating license application > and there are other proposals pending. The SAP urges > the House to fully fund > the program by "redirecting funds from the > oil-and-gas programs." > > The House bill reduces funding levels from last > year's appropriations for > the oil technology and natural gas technology > programs, but does not > terminate them, as the administration requested. The > administration wants > research and development funding for oil and gas > drilling technologies > phased out, seeking only $10 million for each > program in FY-06 for costs > associated with shuttering them and closing out > contracts. The House bill > funds the natural gas program at $33 million and > does not call for its > termination. The oil program is funded at $29 > million and also is not > terminated. > > The House bill cites concerns about "U.S. > over-reliance on foreign oil > imports and the pressure to increase greatly imports > of natural gas" as > validating the funding. The SAP asserts that the oil > and gas programs are > often duplicative of private sector R&D efforts. > "The oil and gas industry > has the financial incentives and resources to > develop new ways to extract > oil and gas from the ground more cheaply and safely, > without taxpayer > assistance," reads the SAP. > > The administration also disagrees with the bill's > stance on carbon > sequestration funding. The bill appropriates DOE's > carbon sequestration > program at $50 million, $17 million less than the > administration requested. > "The Committee believes this level of funding is > sufficient to accomplish > numerous pilot-scale capture tests. The program > cannot absorb the scale of > resources proposed in the request, and these > resources are better utilized > for other nearer-term technologies within the Fossil > Energy R&D portfolio," > the bill states. > > The administration wants the $17 million restored, > arguing that carbon > sequestration will "improve energy security, by > expanding the use of clean > coal technology." > > Lastly, the administration slams the bill for > reducing by more than half the > U.S. contribution to the International Thermonuclear > Experimental Reactor > (ITER). Though the bill increases fusion research > funding above the request, > it redirects funds from ITER to domestic fusion R&D. > The administration > requested $50 million, but the House provided less > than half. The bill warns > DOE in the future to get funding from other Office > of Science research > funding, rather than trying to short-change domestic > fusion research. > > "If the Department does not follow this guidance in > its fiscal year 2007 > budget submission, the Committee is prepared to > eliminate all U.S. funding > for the ITER project in the future," the bill reads. > > > The SAP responds: "Such a significant reduction > could harm the standing of > the United States during the critical final phase of > the international > negotiations this summer and would result in > unnecessary schedule delays and > cost escalation." > > To the surprise of some observers, the > administration remained silent on the > nuclear waste storage plan offered by Rep. David > Hobson (R-OH), chairman of > the House Appropriations energy and water > subcommittee. The bill meets the > administration's fiscal year 2006 request to fund > Yucca Mountain at $651 > million, but it adds an additional $10 million that > would be used by DOE to > select one or more above ground interim storage > sites and to begin moving > nuclear waste there by next year. The administration > touched only briefly on > the topic of Yucca Mountain, noting it was pleased > the House bill fully > funded the project. The SAP urges a compromise over > the administration > budget proposal that would place the Nuclear Waste > Fund off-budget. > CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE > > This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain > information that > is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt > from disclosure. > Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, > > dissemination or other use of or reliance on this > information > may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. > > AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E > > Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut > contenir de > l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les > droits > d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, > divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres > utilisations > non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non > autoris?e > envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est > strictement interdite. > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing > list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have > read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be > found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > === message truncated === +++++++++++++++++++ "Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought." Hugh Blair, 1783 -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/ From sandyfl at earthlink.net Wed Jun 1 16:40:28 2005 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Wed Jun 1 16:42:25 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Official: No danger of aging shelter over Chernobyl's damaged nuclear reactor collapsing Message-ID: <429D666C.21273.1002A0@localhost> Index: No danger of aging shelter over Chernobyl's damaged nuclear reactor France to help Libya develop civilian nuclear energy program PG&E Wraps Up Its Fuel Rod Whereabouts Investigation U.N. training Iraqis in Jordan to measure radiation from DU NATO parliamentary assembly grapples with simulated terrorist attack ============================================= Official: No danger of aging shelter over Chernobyl's damaged nuclear reactor collapsing KIEV, Ukraine (AP) - The crumbling concrete and steel shelter hastily erected over the destroyed nuclear reactor at Chernobyl is in no danger of collapsing, a senior Ukrainian official said. Fears have been growing that the shelter built 19 years ago after Chernobyl's reactor No. 4 exploded and caught fire is deteriorating, which could lead to the release of dangerous radiation. Earlier this month, the West offered more money to this cash-strapped government to help fund a replacement. David Zhvania, head of the Emergency Situations Ministry, told Ukraine's Channel 5 in an interview late Monday that construction work would begin within 18 months. In the meantime, he insisted that the current shelter is safe. "There is no danger that the shelter we currently have may break apart and cause a catastrophe," he said. "Such a thing can't happen. It's excluded." Zhvania said that work will begin only after all preliminary plans are complete. The European Union and the Group of Eight industrial nations pledged a combined US$185 million (145 million) toward the project at a conference in London earlier this month. Ukraine has also promised to pay US$22 million (17 million). More than US$600 million (euro469 million) had been pledged earlier by 28 donor governments. Total costs are estimated at US$1 billion (euro780 million). The protective shelter is meant to contain remnants of the reactor, which was the site of the world's worst nuclear accident in 1986. The explosion spewed radiation over much of northern Europe. Some 4,400 people died and about 7 million people in the former Soviet republics are believed to have suffered from radiation-related health problems. Yuriy Andreev, the head of the Chernobyl Union action group, said that danger levels are still high because used fuel remains stored in the ground under reactor No. 4. Chernobyl's remaining reactors were closed in 2000. Officials say the proposed confinement structure - a 100-meter-high (328-foot-high) steel arch spanning some 260 meters (853 feet) - could be the largest moveable structure ever built. It is expected to be complete by 2009 and to last 100 years. ------------------- France to help Libya develop civilian nuclear energy program PARIS (AP) - France plans to help Libya develop a civilian nuclear energy program, the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday, citing Tripoli's pledge not to develop weapons of mass destruction. The details of French cooperation with Libya have not been finalized and "we're still in an exploratory phase," said ministry spokesman Jean-Francois Mattei. "Given the direction taken by Libya on the issue of weapons of mass destruction," he said, "France has decided to give a favorable follow- up to Libya's request for cooperation." "The principle of cooperation with Libya in the domain of peaceful application of nuclear energy is thus accepted, though the content of this cooperation remains to be defined," he added. France plans to propose a deal with Libya in the near future that would take into account the North African country's needs and infrastructure, Mattei said. No date was specified. Many Western nations have upgraded relations with Tripoli after Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's decision to give up pursuing nuclear weapons and reaching settlements with relatives of victims of two airline bombings in the 1980s that killed hundreds of people dead. ------------------ PG&E Wraps Up Its Fuel Rod Whereabouts Investigation SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)--In an effort to complete an investigation into the location of segments of a used nuclear fuel rod, PG&E Corp. (PCG) concluded that the segments were either stored in a used fuel pool or shipped to a licensed waste facility. In a press release Tuesday, the energy company said the investigation into the whereabouts of the fuel rod began last June when it told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission it had found conflicting records on the location of three, 18-inch long cut segments. The records, the company said, indicate that the segments were either stored in the used fuel pool in 1968 or shipped to one of three licensed nuclear waste facilities in 1969. Further, PG&E said physical evidence indicates that the three segments of the fuel rod have been found in the used fuel pool. They were, however, found in broken and fragmented form, rather than in 18- inch cut segments. Because of the condition of the "apparently" cut fuel rod fragments, and the fact that they have been in storage for less than 40 years, "conclusive positive identification" is "very difficult." Although there is no evidence that offsite shipment occurred, we cannot say with 100 percent certainty that it did not," said Greg Rueger, PG&E's senior vice president for generation and chief nuclear officer. The company's investigation found no evidence to "support the possibility that the fuel segments were stolen" from its Humboldt Bay Power Plant in Northern California. The company added that it will work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to resolve any outstanding issues. It added that it, as a company, has "solid" controls in place with regards to handling nuclear materials at its Humboldt Bay Power Plant. ----------------- U.N. training Iraqis in Jordan to measure radiation from depleted uranium AMMAN, Jordan (AP) - Concerned about depleted uranium and what they say are increasing cancer rates, Iraqi officials are receiving training from U.N. experts on techniques to measure radiation levels according to international standards, a U.N. official Tuesday. Pekka Haavisto, chairman of the U.N. Environment Program's Iraq Task Force, said the Iraqis were especially concerned about the southern city of Basra and the surrounding area. He said the Iraqi government approached UNEP for help. "They did their own studies and found that the cancer risk has increased by two to three times since the 1991 Gulf War," Haavisto told The Associated Press. "These are local studies and have not been internationally verified so it is difficult to say if the picture is so black." Depleted uranium is a heavy metal used in armor-piercing weapons. The Pentagon maintains that depleted uranium is safe and is about 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. The British government has given UNEP detailed information on locations where it used 1.9 tones of depleted uranium in the south of Iraq, but UNEP says the U.S. government hasn't come forward with the same information despite U.N. requests. UNEP is instructing 16 officials from the Iraqi Ministry of Health and Environment, including both vice-ministers, in how to detect depleted uranium. "The UNEP is currently providing training and equipment to Iraqi scientists to measure Beta and Gamma radiation from depleted uranium sources," Haavisto said. He said UNEP has carried out studies on depleted uranium found in munitions used in Kosovo and the Balkan wars but "due to the security situation in Iraq, we are training Iraqis to conduct the studies themselves." Haavisto said the UNEP is concerned that "there has been no proper clean up in Iraq since wars in 2003 and 1991. There is still depleted uranium and other chemicals on the ground. Looting has contributed to the problem," he said. "Usually hazardous materials must be cleaned up as rapidly as possible," he added. He said the UNEP had several other concerns about Iraq, such as the presence of toxic materials, heavy metals and oil spills that present environmental and health hazards. UNEP's studies in the Balkans called for monitoring depleted uranium affected areas, cleanup efforts and clearly marking affected sites. It concluded that that localized contamination can be detected at contaminated sites and so precaution is needed, while in general, levels are so low that they do not pose an immediate threat to human health and the environment. But the Balkans studies also identified a number of uncertainties requiring further investigation, according to UNEP. These include the extent to which depleted uranium on the ground can filter through the soil and eventually contaminate groundwater, and the possibility that depleted uranium dust could later be re-suspended in the air by wind or human activity, with the risk that it could be breathed in. UNEP is also involved in environmental management of the Iraqi marshlands. ------------------- NATO parliamentary assembly grapples with simulated nuclear terrorist attack LJUBLJANA, Slovenia (AP) - More than 300 lawmakers from NATO countries traded ideas Tuesday on how to stave off a nuclear terrorist attack in the heart of Europe and what to do in the wake of such a catastrophe. Hammering the message home on the closing day of NATO's five-day parliamentary assembly spring session, the participants observed a simulated nuclear attack in downtown Brussels, Belgium. The exercise, dubbed Black Dawn, envisions hundreds of thousands of victims from the immediate impact of the blast in the first few days and mass-scale destruction of homes and infrastructure. Radiation carried downwind would spread for miles, while contaminated electrical, water and food supplies would send after-effects permeating through Europe. World markets would crash and commerce would grind to a halt as fear, panic and grief spawns alarm in far-flung regions, prompting the closure of land, sea, air and other borders in expectation of follow- up attacks. "This is not scare tactics," said NATO parliamentary assembly president, Pierre Lellouche. "This is based on real facts." The exercise was the highlight of the parliamentary meeting, which included weekend discussions on a range of matters, from the alliance's current missions to its future role in "post-conflict" operations Regional issues covering the Caucasus, the Balkans and central Asia were also discussed alongside the implications of China's economic emergence and climactic changes in the Arctic. NATO General Secretary Jaap de Hoop Scheffer wrapped up Tuesday's closing session condemning a recent outbreak of violence in Uzbekistan and offering support for international moves to end the humanitarian crisis in Sudan's western region of Darfur. The assembly issued a declaration on both situations. Slovenia, a tiny Alpine republic of 2 million, became a member of NATO last year and is perhaps an ideal location to present a simulated nuclear attack. Part of the Black Dawn scenario focuses on an ex-communist country on the fringe of the European Union, housing a civilian nuclear reactor which is vulnerable to illegal penetration. The staff is likely underpaid and susceptible to bribes, while controls and checks are probably less stringent than in more-developed Western countries. In a briefing on the operation, NATO centers on Al Qaeda's interest in weapons of mass destruction. The briefing notes recent attacks in Spain, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iraq as demonstrations of the "viability and lethality of these splinter groups worldwide." "Al Qaeda's strong presence in Europe combined with multiple symbolic targets, such as U.S. military and NATO installations, close to major population centers renders plausible a WMD terrorist attack in Europe," the paper concludes. NATO experts contend that Europe is not ready to respond effectively to a nuclear threat. To that end, they recommend prevention by locking down and securing dangerous nuclear sites, increasing funding for demilitarization and public awareness, and detecting and interdicting smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From frantaj at aecl.ca Wed Jun 1 16:53:52 2005 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Wed Jun 1 16:54:16 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " White House Urges Oil Appropriations Be Given T o Nuclear, Coal " Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A37A@sps13.aecl.ca> John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@yahoo.com] Maybe if the administration did not request money for nuclear weapons development, there might be more research funds for nuclear power development. I remember when Republicans used to claim about "spend-thrift" administrations and rising deficits. So, what's the Bush's Administrations problem? Here's the problem John : Rumsfeld Reveals Huge Base-Closure Plan Washington DC (UPI) May 13, 2005 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Friday renewed his political offensive to win congressional approval to shut more than 30 major U.S. military bases worldwide and save at least $50 billion. Rumsfeld told the nine-member Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission that his recommendations to close or realign domestic military facilities across the country would help U.S. military forces both at home and around the world confront the new security threats of the 21st century. Rumsfeld and his Pentagon planners estimate that their recommendation, if fully implemented, will generate a net savings of nearly $50 billion over the next two decades. When combined with the anticipated savings from overseas basing realignments, they believe the savings increase to $64.2 billion. "Our current arrangements, designed for the Cold War, must give way to the new demands of the war against extremism and other evolving 21st-century challenges," Rumsfeld said. The recommendations would close 33 major bases and realign 29 more. If approved, the ax will swing on such major installations as Fort Monmouth, N.J.; the naval station at Pascagoula, Miss.; Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota; and the submarine base in Groton, Conn. The closures were sweeping, but Rumsfeld's bark was worse than his bite. He was believed to be considering closing as many as a quarter of all 425 domestic military installations, but he wanted to keep open facilities to house forces being brought home from Europe and South Korea. "The department is recommending fewer major base closures than had earlier been anticipated," due in part to the return of tens of thousands of troops, the secretary said Friday. Bases in the West will be hit hard, but some of the biggest facilities in California that were under threat have been spared. Los Angeles Air Force Base and the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey stay open. Beale Air Force Base near Sacramento will lose 179 service positions, but a dozen more bases in the state will close. The proposed cutbacks will be the fifth stage of a historic process that began during the last era of detente even before the end of the Cold War. Four previous rounds of base closings and amalgamations eliminated or realigned 451 installations, including 97 major ones, and have saved an estimated $40 billion. The cuts Rumsfeld proposed Friday would be carried out over a six-year period starting next year. Despite the previous four rounds of closures, Rumsfeld felt he had been forced to work with a domestic base infrastructure primarily designed to confront the Soviet Union through the Cold War. He wants a different domestic force deployment that will be designed to favor future projections of U.S. power towards Asia and the Middle East as well as respond in a more centralized, rapid and cost-effective way to domestic national security threats. The Pentagon argues that U.S. forces coming home will return to installations better arrayed to train and deploy for possible contingencies around the world. In broad principle no one argues with that. There is also a general consensus, at least in theory, on Capitol Hill that the manpower-heavy, massive infrastructure domestic deployments of the Cold War era have long since been out of date, and that they are at best irrelevant and at worst a costly hindrance and distraction from the "fast and agile" operations involving first-class intelligence, 21st-century communications and small, superbly trained Special Forces necessary for anti-terrorist and other security operations at home as well as around the world. But in practice, the great economic importance of the bases to the states in which they are located has led members of Congress to protect their political bases. Rumsfeld has found political progress on his cutback plan slow and hard. The need to concentrate on preparing for the Iraq war and then deal with its unanticipated complications also slowed progress. But the sweeping Republican victories in both houses of Congress have given President George W. Bush and his secretary of defense political capital they are using to try and push the big change through. Rumsfeld's planners looked at the current military value of the bases, the potential savings to be made from closing them and the economic and environmental impact of potential changes. Pentagon officials say the closures and consolidations that will follow are intended to enhance the military's ability to meet contingency surge or mobilization requirements. They say they are also retaining installations that have unique capabilities that would be difficult to reconstitute at other locations. The ambitious changes are aimed at boosting efficiency as well as saving money. They aim to consolidate similar or duplicative training and support functions to improve joint war fighting. Department of Defense planners also hope the closures will give them the opportunity to transform important support functions including logistics, medicine and research and development by capitalizing on advances in technology and business practice. But the process still has a long way to go. Rumsfeld's plan will be reviewed by the BRAC Commission, which will seek comments from affected communities. The Department of Defense has promised to assist those areas with programs such as personnel transition and job-training assistance, local reuse planning grants and streamlined property disposal. The process should be completed by the end of the year. The closures fit clearly into what has been Rumsfeld's long-term strategy to reshape the structure of the U.S. armed forces. They are neither unprecedented in their scale or direction. Congress still has to approve the cuts, but though it can reject them in their entirety, it cannot trim or soften them - the usual Capitol Hill procedure to save programs favored by powerful political patrons. There is bound to be grumbling. Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, last year's Democratic Party candidate for president, has already objected to the closing of the National Air Guard base in Maine. But in the current political climate, Rumsfeld still looks likely to get these cuts approved. ============================ --- "Franta, Jaroslav" wrote: > So much for the "oil president" monicker..... > > Jaro > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > White House Urges Oil Appropriations Be Given To > Nuclear, Coal > Energy Washington Week > Vol. 2, No. 22 > 1 June 2005 > > The Bush administration is criticizing the > House-passed energy > appropriations bill for underfunding several high > priority programs, CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From blc+ at pitt.edu Wed Jun 1 17:55:47 2005 From: blc+ at pitt.edu (Bernard Cohen) Date: Wed Jun 1 17:49:30 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk In-Reply-To: <00e501c566ae$29103d80$318e7a89@Room30> References: <218.1eb1933.2fcea33d@aol.com> <00e501c566ae$29103d80$318e7a89@Room30> Message-ID: <429DDA83.6010303@pitt.edu> Philippe Duport wrote: > Please see "Determination de la fraction libre d'activit? existant > sous forme de RaA non attach? dans l'atmosph?re d'une mine d'uranium" > by A. Chapuis, A. Lopez, J. Fontan, Health Physics Vol. 25, pp. 59-65 > (1973). At that time, Health Physics accepted papers in French! The > fact that some papers were published in French or in languages other > than English does not imply that the research has not been done and > the information does not exist. > > Chapuis et al report unattached fraction values from 1 or 2% close to > an active stope, up to 15 to 20% without, or far enough from, active > mining operations. Miners do not spend all their time in close > proximity to active mining operations. > > I measured unattached fraction values of the order of 30% in an > isolated, inactive part of an underground uranium mine with forced > ventilation (P. Duport, G. Madelaine, A. Renoux. Mesure de la fraction > libre dans l'air d'une mine d'uranium laboratoire, Chemosphere > 4(5):283-288, 1975) - sorry, another paper in French. > > The unattached fraction is of course very sensitive to aerosol > concentration, but it is a serious mistake to assume that it is always > negligible in mines. > > Philippe Duport ----My apologies for aaying unattached fractions were close to zero in mines. The point is that they are presumably small enough and have little enough variability that they do not affect the radiation dose. If they did, it would not make sense to use WL as an index of radiation in mines From farbersa at optonline.net Wed Jun 1 17:49:45 2005 From: farbersa at optonline.net (farbersa@optonline.net) Date: Wed Jun 1 17:50:31 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIH research Message-ID: Hi: Regarding the long-running depleted U issue health risk thread, see the recently published research summary about tungsten alloy munitions [a suggested "benign alternative" to depleted U] and tungsten's unexpected health threats just published in Environmental Health Perspectives of the NIEHS [National Instit. of Environmental Health Safety of NIH. The intro paragraph and link is given below. Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat In response to concerns about the human and environmental health effects of materials used to produce munitions, countries including the United States have begun replacing some lead- and depleted uranium-based munitions with alternatives made of a tungsten alloy. But this solution may not be the "magic bullet" it was once envisioned to be. Researchers from the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research now report that weapons-grade tungsten alloy produces aggressive metastatic tumors when surgically implanted into the muscles of rats [EHP 113:729-734]. These findings raise new questions about the possible consequences of tungsten exposure, and undermine the view that tungsten alloy is a nontoxic alternative to depleted uranium and lead. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/113-6/ss.html#noma It appears quite likely that tungsten alloy munitions are far more hazardous to human health than depleted U weapons. Stewart Farber [203] 367-0791 [office] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.4.0 - Release Date: 6/1/2005 From pduport at uottawa.ca Wed Jun 1 18:20:37 2005 From: pduport at uottawa.ca (Philippe Duport) Date: Wed Jun 1 18:20:50 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk References: <218.1eb1933.2fcea33d@aol.com> <00e501c566ae$29103d80$318e7a89@Room30> <429DDA83.6010303@pitt.edu> Message-ID: <001301c566c5$d89ceac0$318e7a89@Room30> Dear Dr. Cohen, More recent data on the unattached fraction in U mines: Keng Wu-Tu, Isabel M. Fisenne and Adam R. Hutter. SHORT - AND LONG-LIVED RADIONUCLIDE PARTICLE SIZE MEASUREMENTS IN A URANIUM MINE. DOE-EML Report EML-588, April 1997 Unattached fraction : 0.3 % to 23.9 % in a Canadian uranium mines in 1995 Wu-Tu et al data confirm, independently, those obtained in French U mines some 30 years ago. Dr. Cohen, you may have a point, the unattached fraction may be quite variable and the raw WL value may not be the right parameter to characterize the risk of lung cancer due to radon decay products, and upon which to base lung dose calculations. Wu-Tu et al found also a sizable amount of ultrafine long-lived aerosols (elements of the U 238-235 decay series other than short-lived Rn decay products) between 10 and 100 nm (mode at 30 nm). These were never taken into account in lung dosimetry. P Duport ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernard Cohen" To: "Philippe Duport" Cc: ; ; "Bernard L Cohen" Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:55 AM Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk > > > Philippe Duport wrote: > >> Please see "Determination de la fraction libre d'activit? existant sous >> forme de RaA non attach? dans l'atmosph?re d'une mine d'uranium" by A. >> Chapuis, A. Lopez, J. Fontan, Health Physics Vol. 25, pp. 59-65 (1973). >> At that time, Health Physics accepted papers in French! The fact that >> some papers were published in French or in languages other than English >> does not imply that the research has not been done and the information >> does not exist. >> >> Chapuis et al report unattached fraction values from 1 or 2% close to an >> active stope, up to 15 to 20% without, or far enough from, active mining >> operations. Miners do not spend all their time in close proximity to >> active mining operations. >> >> I measured unattached fraction values of the order of 30% in an >> isolated, inactive part of an underground uranium mine with forced >> ventilation (P. Duport, G. Madelaine, A. Renoux. Mesure de la fraction >> libre dans l'air d'une mine d'uranium laboratoire, Chemosphere >> 4(5):283-288, 1975) - sorry, another paper in French. >> >> The unattached fraction is of course very sensitive to aerosol >> concentration, but it is a serious mistake to assume that it is always >> negligible in mines. >> >> Philippe Duport > > ----My apologies for aaying unattached fractions were close to zero > in mines. The point is that they are presumably small enough and have > little enough variability that they do not affect the radiation dose. If > they did, it would not make sense to use WL as an index of radiation in > mines > From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Wed Jun 1 19:15:32 2005 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Wed Jun 1 19:15:52 2005 Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk In-Reply-To: <429CC6D4.4090303@pitt.edu> Message-ID: <018301c566cd$88a1c880$bf572fd5@pc1> Thank you for your response. My critizism was not so much intended to you personally, but of course you are a well established scientist on radon and lung cancer and therefore you will be in the forefront of any critizism! Having worked such a long time with radon I know of course the health effects of "radon". I know as well about the problems associated with UF. I am very aware of the problem in mines, the WL approach etc. etc. as you mention in your post. I know very well about the problems of measuring UF and radon daughters concentrations. I agree with your comments that it is much easier to measure radon-222 concentrations. I have done it tens of thousand time within the Austrian Radon Project, using the charcoal/LSC method, which also you used some time ago. But the Austrian Radon Project was not (!!!) intended to find a relation between radon-222 concentration and lung cancer. We just wanted to know the radon concentration distribution and an appropriate risk. (What one could (if so desired) derive from the data was, that radon concentration and lung cancer were negatively correlated in some areas, but since radon-222 is not linearily related to lung cancer this is a no-no result.) I insist that relation between Rn-222 concentrations and lung cancer can of course be made (as well as relations between arrival of storks and birth frequency), but to claim extremely small effects on lung cancer taking into account the unknown relation between Rn-222 and progeny is simply unacceptable. I think that all those highly sophisticated research by the "radon celebrities" who only take Rn-222 concentrations into account should at least be reconsidered and revised. I see that Bill Field is doing a reasonable job to measure daughter products. I will observe his work in the future. Best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] Im > Auftrag von Bernard Cohen > Gesendet: Dienstag, 31. Mai 2005 22:20 > An: Franz Sch?nhofer > Cc: 'Otto G. Raabe'; 'Bernard Cohen'; radsafe@radlab.nl > Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk > > > > Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > > >"Why do you ignore my response.....", just a copied phrase from your > mail. > >Do you believe that it is below your scientific level to answer my > clearly > >formulated criticism? Why do you still mention average county radon > levels > >in this post? > > > ---Your message was not addressed to me specifically and was > not about my work specifically, so I did not feel obligated to respond, > butI will respond here. > The health effects of radon depend basically on three things, radon > gas concentration -r, concentration of radon daughters --WL (working > level), and unattached fraction -UF (fraction of radon daughters not > attached to a dust particle - this is important because these have a > much greater probability of sticking to the bronchial surfaces). In > mines, there is so much dust that one can assume UF = 0, so measuring WL > gives the health effects. In homes, this is not so. As an example, one > can drastically reduce the WL by removing the dust (for example, with an > electrostatic precipitator), but the newly formed radon daughters have > no dust to attach to, so UF = 1.0, and the danger is not reduced. > Roughly, health effects, HE = k x WL x UF.where k is a constant > In general, there is a strong negative correlation between UF and > the ratio of WL/r (equilibrium factor), or .UF x WL/r = K, another > constant. Combining these two equations, HE = k x K x r, or health > effects are proportional to r, HE = k' r. Detailed studies have > confirmed this result, and shown that it is much more accurate than > assuming HE = k'' x WL. (k' and k'' are new constants) > Ideally, one should measure WL and UF, but that is very difficult > and is essentially never done. Moreover, it is much easier to measure r > than to measure WL. That is why everyone measures r. . > In my studies involving hundreds of thousands of measurements of r, > it seems reasonable to assume that there is no strong systematic > variation in the ratio of r to health effects. If you have reason to > think that there might be such a systematic variation, please let me know. > > >I insist that it is more than unscientific to claim minor statistical > >significance, when the data might be wrong by tens of percents. > > > >Sorry to say, that I have once admired your way of proofing that others > are > >incorrect, by using their data and showing that they are in disagreement > >with the claimed results. I have used this tactic very often myself. > > > >In this case I believe that you are working with data (radon > >concentrations), which are not directly related to your "results" - lung > >cancer. > > > >Franz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From maurysis at ev1.net Wed Jun 1 19:28:36 2005 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Wed Jun 1 19:27:23 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " White House Urges Oil Appropriations Be Given To Nuclear, Coal " In-Reply-To: <20050601143459.73219.qmail@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050601143459.73219.qmail@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <429DF044.5070003@ev1.net> One does not eliminate risks by canceling one's insurance policies. Cheers, Maury&Dog (Maury Siskel maurysis@ev1.net) ==================== John Jacobus wrote: >Maybe if the administration did not request money for nuclear weapons development, there might be more >research funds for nuclear power development. > >I remember when Republicans used to claim about "spend-thrift" administrations and rising deficits. So, what's the Bush's Administrations problem? > >--- "Franta, Jaroslav" wrote: > > >>So much for the "oil president" monicker..... >> >>Jaro >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>White House Urges Oil Appropriations Be Given To Nuclear, Coal >>Energy Washington Week >>Vol. 2, No. 22 >>1 June 2005 >> >> --------- snipped ------------ From niton at mchsi.com Wed Jun 1 19:38:39 2005 From: niton at mchsi.com (niton@mchsi.com) Date: Wed Jun 1 19:38:55 2005 Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk Message-ID: <060120051738.29483.429DF29F00063FA60000732B219791299502019B0702@mchsi.com> Franz, In fact, I am heading out in the field latter today with students to place both active and passive detectors at homes with varying depositional environments. Obviously, the depositional environment differs in a room with a smoker versus a non smoker or in a room that has a ceiling fan being used versus one that does not. We have already measurered many parametrs including the use of air cleaners in the laboratory, we are now looking to see if what we found in the lab translates to the field. Once we know that, we can further calibrate our glass-based retospective radon progeny detectors that were used in the Iowa and Missouri Residential Radon Studies. By the way, are you all familiar with the EPA's revised risk estimates for radon progeny exposure (for the U.S.) that ws released in 2004? www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/assessment/402-r-03-003.pdf Regards, Bill > Thank you for your response. My critizism was not so much intended to you > personally, but of course you are a well established scientist on radon and > lung cancer and therefore you will be in the forefront of any critizism! > > Having worked such a long time with radon I know of course the health > effects of "radon". I know as well about the problems associated with UF. I > am very aware of the problem in mines, the WL approach etc. etc. as you > mention in your post. > > I know very well about the problems of measuring UF and radon daughters > concentrations. I agree with your comments that it is much easier to measure > radon-222 concentrations. I have done it tens of thousand time within the > Austrian Radon Project, using the charcoal/LSC method, which also you used > some time ago. But the Austrian Radon Project was not (!!!) intended to find > a relation between radon-222 concentration and lung cancer. We just wanted > to know the radon concentration distribution and an appropriate risk. (What > one could (if so desired) derive from the data was, that radon concentration > and lung cancer were negatively correlated in some areas, but since > radon-222 is not linearily related to lung cancer this is a no-no result.) > > I insist that relation between Rn-222 concentrations and lung cancer can of > course be made (as well as relations between arrival of storks and birth > frequency), but to claim extremely small effects on lung cancer taking into > account the unknown relation between Rn-222 and progeny is simply > unacceptable. > > I think that all those highly sophisticated research by the "radon > celebrities" who only take Rn-222 concentrations into account should at > least be reconsidered and revised. > > I see that Bill Field is doing a reasonable job to measure daughter > products. I will observe his work in the future. > > Best regards, > > Franz > > > Franz Schoenhofer > PhD, MR iR > Habicherg. 31/7 > A-1160 Vienna > AUSTRIA > phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] Im > > Auftrag von Bernard Cohen > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 31. Mai 2005 22:20 > > An: Franz Schönhofer > > Cc: 'Otto G. Raabe'; 'Bernard Cohen'; radsafe@radlab.nl > > Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk > > > > > > > > Franz Schönhofer wrote: > > > > >"Why do you ignore my response.....", just a copied phrase from your > > mail. > > >Do you believe that it is below your scientific level to answer my > > clearly > > >formulated criticism? Why do you still mention average county radon > > levels > > >in this post? > > > > > ---Your message was not addressed to me specifically and was > > not about my work specifically, so I did not feel obligated to respond, > > butI will respond here. > > The health effects of radon depend basically on three things, radon > > gas concentration -r, concentration of radon daughters --WL (working > > level), and unattached fraction -UF (fraction of radon daughters not > > attached to a dust particle - this is important because these have a > > much greater probability of sticking to the bronchial surfaces). In > > mines, there is so much dust that one can assume UF = 0, so measuring WL > > gives the health effects. In homes, this is not so. As an example, one > > can drastically reduce the WL by removing the dust (for example, with an > > electrostatic precipitator), but the newly formed radon daughters have > > no dust to attach to, so UF = 1.0, and the danger is not reduced. > > Roughly, health effects, HE = k x WL x UF.where k is a constant > > In general, there is a strong negative correlation between UF and > > the ratio of WL/r (equilibrium factor), or .UF x WL/r = K, another > > constant. Combining these two equations, HE = k x K x r, or health > > effects are proportional to r, HE = k' r. Detailed studies have > > confirmed this result, and shown that it is much more accurate than > > assuming HE = k'' x WL. (k' and k'' are new constants) > > Ideally, one should measure WL and UF, but that is very difficult > > and is essentially never done. Moreover, it is much easier to measure r > > than to measure WL. That is why everyone measures r. . > > In my studies involving hundreds of thousands of measurements of r, > > it seems reasonable to assume that there is no strong systematic > > variation in the ratio of r to health effects. If you have reason to > > think that there might be such a systematic variation, please let me know. > > > > >I insist that it is more than unscientific to claim minor statistical > > >significance, when the data might be wrong by tens of percents. > > > > > >Sorry to say, that I have once admired your way of proofing that others > > are > > >incorrect, by using their data and showing that they are in disagreement > > >with the claimed results. I have used this tactic very often myself. > > > > > >In this case I believe that you are working with data (radon > > >concentrations), which are not directly related to your "results" - lung > > >cancer. > > > > > >Franz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the > RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jun 1 19:58:50 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed Jun 1 19:59:01 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " White House Urges Oil Appropriations Be Given To Nuclear, Coal " In-Reply-To: <429DF044.5070003@ev1.net> Message-ID: <20050601175850.16762.qmail@web54304.mail.yahoo.com> Risk from what? A nuclear attack? --- Maury Siskel wrote: > One does not eliminate risks by canceling one's > insurance policies. > Cheers, > Maury&Dog (Maury Siskel maurysis@ev1.net) > > ==================== > John Jacobus wrote: > > >Maybe if the administration did not request money > for nuclear weapons development, there might be more > >research funds for nuclear power development. > > > >I remember when Republicans used to claim about > "spend-thrift" administrations and rising deficits. > So, what's the Bush's Administrations problem? > > > >--- "Franta, Jaroslav" wrote: > > > > > >>So much for the "oil president" monicker..... > >> > >>Jaro > >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>White House Urges Oil Appropriations Be Given To > Nuclear, Coal > >>Energy Washington Week > >>Vol. 2, No. 22 > >>1 June 2005 > >> > >> > --------- snipped ------------ > +++++++++++++++++++ "Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought." Hugh Blair, 1783 -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hflong at pacbell.net Wed Jun 1 01:24:36 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Wed Jun 1 20:18:46 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Adrenalin, NOT Depleted Uranium associated with illness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050531232436.32954.qmail@web81802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Norm, Like witch burners in Europe 400 years ago, who had to blame someone for storms, we could do more harm than good (to emission-free nuclear power) by blaming war and adrenalin effects on DU. DU radiation exposure was less than than a healing radon mine in Montana or the healing radon springs of Europe or even the healthier, higher background radiation counties in the USA. Adrenalin blockers halve the total mortality rates of hypertensives, of heart- failure and after heart attacks. War would do the opposite to me, if confronting anthrax (what happened to those 10,000 liters of spores?), VX (worse than what Saddam used on the Kurds) or the unknowns of a madman who was working with Al Qida and close to having a nuclear weapon. Howard Long Norm Cohen wrote: ----- Subject: What is Depleted Uranium? Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 03:46:36 -0700 (PDT) courtesy The Lone Star Iconoclast Online --------------- A Scientific Perspective An Interview With LEUREN MORET, Geoscientist Interview Conducted By W. Leon Smith and Nathan Diebenow Leuren Moret is a geoscientist who works almost around the clock educating citizens, the media, members of parliaments and Congress and other officials on radiation issues. She became a whistleblower in 1991 at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab after witnessing fraud on the Yucca Mountain Project. She is currently working as an independent citizen scientist and radiation specialist in communities around the world, and contributed to the U.N. subcommission investigating depleted uranium. According to Wikipedia online encyclopedia, Moret testified at the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan in Japan in 2003, presented at the World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference in Hamburg, Germany, and spoke at the World Court of Women at the World Social Forum in Bombay, India, in January 2004. THE INTERVIEW ICONOCLAST: What are the latest developments with reducing depleted uranium exposures on U.S. troops? MORET: A young veteran named Melissa Sterry of Connecticut has introduced a bill into the Connecticut Legislature requiring independent testing of returning Afghan and Gulf War veterans going back to 2001. She said that she did it because she’s sick, and her friends are dead, and that’s from serving in the 2003 conflict. I have been following the bill and talking to her. Yesterday, she testified twice at the United Nations. I said, “Why don’t we get this bill all over the U.S. in state legislatures because it informs the public and get the local media to cover it.” The U.S. has blocked any accountability at international and national levels. There’s a total cover-up just like with Agent Orange, the atomic veterans, MKULTRA, the mind control experiments the CIA did. This is more of the same, but the issue is much, much worse because the genetic future of all those contaminated is effected. Now vast regions around our world, as well as our atmosphere, are contaminated with the depleted uranium. They’ve used so much. It’s the equivalent number of atoms, as the Japanese professor calculated it, to over 400,000 Nagasaki bombs that has been released into the atmosphere. That’s really an underestimate. I went to Louisiana in April. I was invited to speak at the University of New Orleans for three days. One of the veterans asked me to be in their April 19 protest and rally through the City of New Orleans. He took the Connecticut bill straight to the Legislature, and he got two legislators to sponsor it, and he said, “Just whiteout the name ‘Connecticut’ and write in ‘Louisiana’ on the bill.” You’re not going to believe it. It passed 101 to 0 yesterday in the Louisiana House. I want you to write about it because we want it (the DU testing bill) in Texas. Nevada is going to introduce it. Congressman Jim McDermott is going to put it into the Washington legislature. We want to get the governor of Montana to do it because he’s the first governor to demand his National Guard be returned. I think half of them are back. He said, “I need them in the state.” The DU issue is just really, really, really, really so awful. I don’t think there’s any greater tragedy in the history of the world in what they’ve done. ICONOCLAST: Is there a danger of depleted uranium, being used in weaponry over there, spreading by air over here? MORET: The atmosphere globally is contaminated with it. It’s completely mixed in one year. I’m an expert on atmospheric dust. I’m a geoscientist, a geologist, and that’s what I studied and did my research on. It’s really a fascinating subject. We have huge dust storms that are a million square miles and transport millions of tons of dust and sand every year around the world. The main centers of these dust storms are the Gobi Desert in China, which is where the Chinese did atmospheric testing, so that’s all contaminated with radiation, and it gets transported right over Japan, and it comes straight across the Pacific and dumps all its sand and dust on the U.S., North America. It’s loaded with radioactive isotopes, soot, pesticides, chemicals, pollution — everything is in it — fungi, bacteria, viruses. The Sahara Desert is another huge dust center, and it goes up all over Europe and straight across the Atlantic, to the Caribbean, and up the East Coast. Of course, you get it in Texas with those hurricanes. They all originate in the Sahara Desert. The third region is the Western United States, which is where the Nevada test site is located. We did 1,200 nuclear weapons tests there, so all this radiation that is already there, which is bad enough, has caused a global cancer epidemic since 1945. All of that radiation was the equivalent of 40,000 Nagasaki bombs. We’re talking about 10 times more. In April of 2003, the World Health Organization said they expect global cancer rates to increase 50 percent by the year 2020. Infant mortality is going up again all over the world. This is an indicator of the level of radioactive pollution. When the U.S. and Russia signed the partial test ban treaty in 1963, the infant mortality rate started dropping again, which is normal. Now they are going up again. It’s the global pollution with this radiation. ICONOCLAST: I had one of our correspondents send me a series of photographs of the Al-Asad dust storm in Iraq on April 28. MORET: That dust is what I’m talking about. ICONOCLAST: In the picture you can see a gigantic wall of sand. MORET: I have 16 pictures of that storm. They’re posted with photos from Iraqi doctors of the children of people with cancer and leukemia. So what did you think of that dust storm? ICONOCLAST: I thought it was really dramatic. MORET: It remobilizes all the radiation, but those are the larger chunks. The DU burns at such high temperatures. It’s a pyroforic metal which means it burns. The bullets and big caliber shells are actually on fire when they come out of the gun barrel because they are ignited by the friction in the gun barrel. Seventy percent of the DU metal becomes a metal vapor. It’s actually a radioactive gas weapon and a terrain contaminant. I’ll email you the URL of the 1943 memo to General Leslie Grove under the Manhattan Project. It’s the blueprint for depleted uranium. They dropped the atomic bombs, but they did not use the DU weapons because they thought they were too horrific. I’ve toured and gone all over Japan with a pediatrician in Basra and an oncologist, a cancer specialist. These poor doctors — their whole families are dying of cancer. He has 10 members of his family with cancer now that he’s treating, and this is just from Gulf War I. They’ve used much, much, much more in 2003. All over the whole country. ICONOCLAST: What can soldiers expect when they come home? MORET: If they were in Bradley Fighting Vehicles, they’re coming home with rectal cancer from sitting on ammunition boxes. The young women are reporting terrible problems with endometriosis. That’s the lining of the uterus malfunctioning, and they just bleed and bleed and bleed. Some of them have uterine cancer — 18 and 19 and 20 year olds. The Army will not even diagnose it. They send them back to the battlefields. They won’t treat them or diagnose them. A group of 20 soldiers pushed from Kuwait to Baghdad in 2003 in all the fighting. Eight of those 20 soldiers have malignancies. ICONOCLAST: Does exposure to depleted uranium effect their psychological background when they come home? MORET: Depleted uranium are these particles that form at very high temperatures. They are uranium oxides that are insoluble. They are at least 100 times smaller than a white blood cell, so when the soldiers breathe, they inhale them. The particles go through the nose, go through the olfactory and into the brain, and it messes up their cognitive abilities, thought processes. It damages their mood-control mechanism in the brain. Four soldiers at Fort Bragg came back from Afghanistan, and within two months, those four had murdered their wives. This is part of the damage to the brain from the radiation and the particles. The soldiers from Gulf War I in a group of 67 soldiers who came back, they had DU in their equipment, in their clothes, in their bodies, in their semen, and they had normal babies before they went over there to war. They came back, and the VA did a study. Of 251 Gulf War I veterans in Mississippi, in 67 percent of them, thier babies born after the war were deemed to have severe birth defects. They had brains missing, arms and legs missing, organs missing. They were born without eyes. They had horrible blood diseases. It’s horrific. If you want to look at something, Life magazine did a photo essay which is still on the Internet. It’s called “The Tiny Victims of Desert Storm.” You should look at that — oh, my God, the post-Gulf War babies playing with their brothers and sisters who are normal. Basically, it’s like smoking crack, only you’re smoking radioactive crack. It goes straight into the blood stream. It’s carried all throughout the body into the bones, the bone marrow, the brain. It goes into the fetus. It’s a systemic poison and a radiological poison. ICONOCLAST: What about the people in the United States that are here? You say that DU is being mixed and spread globally? MORET: Yes, it’s being mixed globally. We’re getting secondary smoke. It’s the secondary smoke effect. You know the people who inhabit a room with smokers? They are getting that secondary smoke, and so are we. ICONOCLAST: Is that secondary smoke getting thicker as we speak? MORET: Yeah, the concentration of the depleted uranium particles in the atmosphere all around the globe is increasing. There are indications that the U.S. will go in June and bomb the heck out of Iran. We’re monitoring the U.S. Army ammunition factories. They have very large orders for those huge bunker buster bombs that have 5,000 lbs. of DU in the warhead. ICONOCLAST: So the prognosis for America isn’t really good? MORET: No, it’s really bad. ICONOCLAST: And if this continues then? MORET: It’s going to kill off the world’s population. It already is, and it doesn’t just effect people. It effects all living systems. The plants, the animals, the bacteria. It effects everything. ICONOCLAST: So the things that we eat for instance, if they have DU in them, then we’ll just get it in our systems, and so we’re polluting the oceans, so that could effect all marine life? MORET: Yes, it’s in the air, water, and soil. The half-life of DU, Uranium 238, is 4.5 billion years the age of the Earth. ICONOCLAST: With the damage that’s been done to this point, can we turn back? We can’t clean it up? MORET: There’s no way to clean it up. What happens is these tiny particles float around the Earth. There are still plutonium and uranium floating around the Earth from bomb testing. These particles are so tiny that molecules bumping into them keep them lofted in the air, and so the only way for them to get out of the atmosphere is rain, snow, fog, pollution, which will clear them out of the air and deposit them in the environment. What happens is the surface of these particles gets wetted by the moisture in the air. They come down and land on stuff and stick to it like a glue. You can’t ever get the particles off whatever they’re sticking to because have you ever put a drop of water on a microscope slide and then put another one on top of it? Can you pull those apart? ICONOCLAST: No. MORET: Okay, that’s the same effect that happens to radioactive particles. Once they are removed from the atmosphere, they stick to any surfaces they land on. In a way they are removed from circulation from the atmosphere. You can’t wash them off. If it keeps raining or they’re in a creek, you know, if they’re on rocks or stones or something in a creek, they won’t even wash off. You didn’t know it was this bad, did you? ICONOCLAST: No, I knew it was bad, but I thought it was fairly isolated. MORET: No. What is over there (in Iraq) is over here in about four days. I don’t know if you followed Chernobyl. That big bubble of radiation went around and around the world, but this is dust. It becomes a part of atmospheric dust. Like the dust storm you saw in that photo, it goes everywhere. ICONOCLAST: Is it in the upper levels of the atmosphere or the lower levels? MORET: It’s in lower orbital space. They brought the Mir spacecraft back down to Earth when they got done using it, and there was something called a space midge which covered the electronics on the outside of the spacecraft and protected it from radiation that comes from the sun because electronics are real vulnerable to radiation. They analyzed the surface of that space net and found uranium and uranium decayed products which they said came from atmospheric testing or burned up spacecraft with nuclear materials or nuclear reactors on board. Uranium can also come from supernovas, but they thought that the most likely sources were atmospheric testing and the nuclear materials we put in space. ICONOCLAST: Essentially then, you’re saying that we’re conducting a nuclear war. MORET: Yes, and that’s exactly what it is. We’ve conducted four nuclear wars since 1991. Yeah, these are nuclear wars. DU is a nuclear weapon. ICONOCLAST: From the point of view of a scientist, what needs to happen to correct this? MORET: Well, we need to stop the use of it. We’ve built an international movement to stop the use, the manufacture, the storage, the sales, and the deployment of depleted uranium weapons. ICONOCLAST: Are the munitions we sell to other countries contained with depleted uranium? MORET: We have. In 1968 the first depleted uranium weapons systems that we found a patent for suddenly appeared in the U.S. patent office. It was for the Navy. It was sort of a Gatling gun style weapon system that you mounted on ships. It rapidly fires like 2,500 bullets a minute. It’s over 3,000 now. They’ve improved the design. Then in 1973, we gave depleted uranium weapons systems to the Israelis and supervised their use. They used them in the Arab-Israeli war and completely wiped out the Arabs in five days. Then the show was on the road. That was the first actual battlefield demonstration of this new weapon system. Hughes Aircraft developed the full-length system which is for the Navy. That’s the Gatling gun system. They still use it. That was produced in 1974 and tested. Within six months the U.S. government had sold the DU weapons system to 12 entities which included many branches of the U.S. military and other counties. We’ve sold DU weapons systems to about — we don’t know exactly for sure — it’s been about 12 or 17 countries. The good news is that normally such a weapons system that effective would have been sold to 80, 100, or 120 countries by now. But because of the radiological, biological, and environmental hazard, countries were not only afraid to buy it, the ones who did buy it are afraid to use it. The only countries we know that have used DU are Britain, the U.S., and Israel. The United Nations in 1996 passed a resolution that depleted uranium weapons are weapons of mass destruction, and they are illegal under all international laws and treaties. In 2001, the European Parliament passed a resolution on DU. What happened is that the NATO forces went into Yugoslavia in 1998 and ’99 and flew 39,000 bombing runs and completely bombed Yugoslavia into radioactive rubble. Germany and the U.S. made the most money on the destruction of Yugoslavia, and they made sure that countries that didn’t know about the DU, that the peacekeepers from those countries like from Italy and Portugal, were sent to the most contaminated regions in Yugoslavia. Germans and Americans didn’t send their own troops into those areas. They were in the least contaminated areas. These poor soldiers from other countries came back and died within weeks or in a couple of days or months. The parents in Portugal and Italy are furious and went to the Parliament and media, and there was just a huge media storm of articles about DU. The cat was out of the bag because of the 1998 NATO invasion of Yugoslavia. The cat was out of the bag, but Japanese troops have been sent into Somawa. They’re self-defense forces. It was the most contaminated area where the heaviest fighting happened in Iraq. We can expect those soldiers to be really, really sick. ICONOCLAST: What about Iraq itself? What’s been done thus far? MORET: It’s uninhabitable. The whole country. Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan are completely uninhabitable. ICONOCLAST: But people live there, so they’re going to live there suffering? MORET: Well, you can see from the birth defects and the illnesses that it is pretty severe. Each year the number of birth defects and illnesses will rise because of the total contamination levels in all living things will increase because they are breathing that air and drinking water and eating the food from contaminated soils. It’s just a slow death sentence. The same with Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. Depleted uranium is a very, very, very effective biological weapon. This is the primary purpose for using it. Marion Falk (a retired chemical physicist who built nuclear bombs for more than 20 years at Lawrence Livermore lab), who is the Manhattan Project scientist I work with, taught me pretty much everything about radiation and particles and DU. He said the purpose of weapons used by the military is not only to injure and kill the enemy soldiers, but the purpose is to kill, maim, and disease the civilian population because it reduces the productivity of a country and pretty soon a lot of their resources are going to be used for taking care of sick people. They will have fewer and fewer healthy workers. Of course, once you cause mutation in the DNA, that damage is passed on to future generations of that affected person or animal or plant. DNA does not repair itself. ICONOCLAST: So the mutations would be probably destructive moreso than constructive. MORET: Oh, the mutations are causing those birth defects. ICONOCLAST: They’re not evolutionary diseases? MORET: No, they are evolutionary. They are inherited by all future generations and passed on. It’s like if you have red hair and all of your future generations will have that gene. ICONOCLAST: So if I had a precondition to heart disease because of the radiation, then the generation that would come after me would have the same problem? MORET: Well, if you damage the cell or parts of the cell or functioning of cells, that doesn’t necessarily damage the DNA. There are two kinds of damage: one damages the cells of the living organism, and that may not be passed on, but if you damage the DNA in the egg or the sperm, that is passed on to all future generations. ICONOCLAST: So the guys coming back from the war, their sperm is probably going to be — MORET: Damaged. Yes. They also have depleted uranium in their semen. When they’re intimate with their partners, they internally contaminate them with depleted uranium. The women become sick themselves. They have depleted uranium in their bodies, and there is something called burning syndrome. Just absolutely horrible. You can read about it in an article by David Rose in the December Vanity Fair. It’s on the Internet. A friend of mine is the widow of a Canadian Gulf War veteran. David Rose === message truncated ===No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.3.0 - Release Date: 5/30/05 _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From hflong at pacbell.net Wed Jun 1 20:18:51 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Wed Jun 1 20:19:02 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " White House Urges Oil Appropriations Be Given T o Nuclear, Coal " In-Reply-To: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A37A@sps13.aecl.ca> Message-ID: <20050601181851.72327.qmail@web81812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> How many of the closed bases would fit nuclear power reactors? We need 500 reactors in the next two decades to charge electic hybrid cars at night, etc! It would help solve the NIMBY problem and might turn on Thune to support jobs in SD, rather than obstruct, for example. Is this worth PHs flooding Congress with support for clean energy replacing white elephants, reactors replacing horses, ploughshares replacing swords? Howard Long "Franta, Jaroslav" wrote: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@yahoo.com] Maybe if the administration did not request money for nuclear weapons development, there might be more research funds for nuclear power development. I remember when Republicans used to claim about "spend-thrift" administrations and rising deficits. So, what's the Bush's Administrations problem? Here's the problem John : Rumsfeld Reveals Huge Base-Closure Plan Washington DC (UPI) May 13, 2005 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Friday renewed his political offensive to win congressional approval to shut more than 30 major U.S. military bases worldwide and save at least $50 billion. Rumsfeld told the nine-member Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission that his recommendations to close or realign domestic military facilities across the country would help U.S. military forces both at home and around the world confront the new security threats of the 21st century. Rumsfeld and his Pentagon planners estimate that their recommendation, if fully implemented, will generate a net savings of nearly $50 billion over the next two decades. When combined with the anticipated savings from overseas basing realignments, they believe the savings increase to $64.2 billion. "Our current arrangements, designed for the Cold War, must give way to the new demands of the war against extremism and other evolving 21st-century challenges," Rumsfeld said. The recommendations would close 33 major bases and realign 29 more. If approved, the ax will swing on such major installations as Fort Monmouth, N.J.; the naval station at Pascagoula, Miss.; Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota; and the submarine base in Groton, Conn. The closures were sweeping, but Rumsfeld's bark was worse than his bite. He was believed to be considering closing as many as a quarter of all 425 domestic military installations, but he wanted to keep open facilities to house forces being brought home from Europe and South Korea. "The department is recommending fewer major base closures than had earlier been anticipated," due in part to the return of tens of thousands of troops, the secretary said Friday. Bases in the West will be hit hard, but some of the biggest facilities in California that were under threat have been spared. Los Angeles Air Force Base and the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey stay open. Beale Air Force Base near Sacramento will lose 179 service positions, but a dozen more bases in the state will close. The proposed cutbacks will be the fifth stage of a historic process that began during the last era of detente even before the end of the Cold War. Four previous rounds of base closings and amalgamations eliminated or realigned 451 installations, including 97 major ones, and have saved an estimated $40 billion. The cuts Rumsfeld proposed Friday would be carried out over a six-year period starting next year. Despite the previous four rounds of closures, Rumsfeld felt he had been forced to work with a domestic base infrastructure primarily designed to confront the Soviet Union through the Cold War. He wants a different domestic force deployment that will be designed to favor future projections of U.S. power towards Asia and the Middle East as well as respond in a more centralized, rapid and cost-effective way to domestic national security threats. The Pentagon argues that U.S. forces coming home will return to installations better arrayed to train and deploy for possible contingencies around the world. In broad principle no one argues with that. There is also a general consensus, at least in theory, on Capitol Hill that the manpower-heavy, massive infrastructure domestic deployments of the Cold War era have long since been out of date, and that they are at best irrelevant and at worst a costly hindrance and distraction from the "fast and agile" operations involving first-class intelligence, 21st-century communications and small, superbly trained Special Forces necessary for anti-terrorist and other security operations at home as well as around the world. But in practice, the great economic importance of the bases to the states in which they are located has led members of Congress to protect their political bases. Rumsfeld has found political progress on his cutback plan slow and hard. The need to concentrate on preparing for the Iraq war and then deal with its unanticipated complications also slowed progress. But the sweeping Republican victories in both houses of Congress have given President George W. Bush and his secretary of defense political capital they are using to try and push the big change through. Rumsfeld's planners looked at the current military value of the bases, the potential savings to be made from closing them and the economic and environmental impact of potential changes. Pentagon officials say the closures and consolidations that will follow are intended to enhance the military's ability to meet contingency surge or mobilization requirements. They say they are also retaining installations that have unique capabilities that would be difficult to reconstitute at other locations. The ambitious changes are aimed at boosting efficiency as well as saving money. They aim to consolidate similar or duplicative training and support functions to improve joint war fighting. Department of Defense planners also hope the closures will give them the opportunity to transform important support functions including logistics, medicine and research and development by capitalizing on advances in technology and business practice. But the process still has a long way to go. Rumsfeld's plan will be reviewed by the BRAC Commission, which will seek comments from affected communities. The Department of Defense has promised to assist those areas with programs such as personnel transition and job-training assistance, local reuse planning grants and streamlined property disposal. The process should be completed by the end of the year. The closures fit clearly into what has been Rumsfeld's long-term strategy to reshape the structure of the U.S. armed forces. They are neither unprecedented in their scale or direction. Congress still has to approve the cuts, but though it can reject them in their entirety, it cannot trim or soften them - the usual Capitol Hill procedure to save programs favored by powerful political patrons. There is bound to be grumbling. Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, last year's Democratic Party candidate for president, has already objected to the closing of the National Air Guard base in Maine. But in the current political climate, Rumsfeld still looks likely to get these cuts approved. ============================ --- "Franta, Jaroslav" wrote: > So much for the "oil president" monicker..... > > Jaro > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > White House Urges Oil Appropriations Be Given To > Nuclear, Coal > Energy Washington Week > Vol. 2, No. 22 > 1 June 2005 > > The Bush administration is criticizing the > House-passed energy > appropriations bill for underfunding several high > priority programs, CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE Le présent courriel, et toute pičce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée envers celle-ci peut ętre illégale et est strictement interdite. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From fd003f0606 at blueyonder.co.uk Wed Jun 1 20:29:50 2005 From: fd003f0606 at blueyonder.co.uk (Fred Dawson) Date: Wed Jun 1 20:29:57 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Drawing uncovered of 'Nazi nuke' Message-ID: <000a01c566d7$e5ba49c0$0200a8c0@DG47BM0J> BBC reports Historians working in Germany and the US claim to have found a 60-year-old diagram showing a Nazi nuclear bomb. It is the only known drawing of a "nuke" made by Nazi experts and appears in a report held by a private archive. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4598955.stm Fred Dawson England From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Wed Jun 1 21:05:07 2005 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Wed Jun 1 21:05:48 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: What is Depleted Uranium? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <018e01c566dc$d5dbb070$bf572fd5@pc1> Norman, Thank you for telling me, "What is Depleted Uranium". I have studied chemistry for 11 years before graduation as a PhD, my PhD work was in radiochemistry. I have spent decades in radioactivity environmental protection, I have been in the forefront of the Austrian Chernobyl Mitigation and also wrote the official report on the effect of the Chernobyl accident on Austria. Thank you that you forward to me "What is Depleted Uranium". Therefore I think it is somewhat challenging to receive from you the interesting lecture of a geoscientist, who works around the clock (I personally worked during the heydays of the Chernobyl accident up to 20 hours, but not more), who is touring the world and living on its obviously profitable anti-nuclear shows. You want some more examples? To put it straight: I have not studied chemistry, radiochemistry and have not acquired a PHD in radiochemistry, worked for decades in this field to be told by a geoscientist, whose only credential seems to be a "whistleblower acitivty", that I am an idiot. Anybody else on RADSAFE to feel like this? Nice, that you distribute what you receive, but I still think that you personally should be intellectually more able to distinguish between such shit (sorry, I should have written s++t) and facts. Norman, in spite of our very harsh controversies in the past I still thought that you might be able to sort out s--t from serious messages. Best wishes to you and your family, Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] Im > Auftrag von Norm Cohen > Gesendet: Dienstag, 31. Mai 2005 14:33 > An: cpjlist@yahoogroups.com; know_nukes@yahoogroups.com; radsafe@radlab.nl > Cc: du-list@yahoogroups.com; the_progressive_resistance@yahoogroups.com; > du-watch.yahoogroups.com > Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: What is Depleted Uranium? > > > > ----- > Subject: What is Depleted Uranium? > Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 03:46:36 -0700 (PDT) > > courtesy The Lone Star Iconoclast Online > > --------------- > > > > > A Scientific Perspective > > An Interview With > LEUREN MORET, Geoscientist > > Interview Conducted > By W. Leon Smith > and Nathan Diebenow > > > Leuren Moret is a geoscientist who works almost around the clock educating > citizens, the media, members of parliaments and Congress and other > officials on radiation issues. She became a whistleblower in 1991 at the > Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab after witnessing fraud on the Yucca Mountain > Project. She is currently working as an independent citizen scientist and > radiation specialist in communities around the world, and contributed to > the U.N. subcommission investigating depleted uranium. According to > Wikipedia online encyclopedia, Moret testified at the International > Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan in Japan in 2003, presented at the World > Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference in Hamburg, Germany, and spoke at the > World Court of Women at the World Social Forum in Bombay, India, in > January 2004. > > THE INTERVIEW > > > ICONOCLAST: What are the latest developments with reducing depleted > uranium exposures on U.S. troops? > > > MORET: A young veteran named Melissa Sterry of Connecticut has introduced > a bill into the Connecticut Legislature requiring independent testing of > returning Afghan and Gulf War veterans going back to 2001. She said that > she did it because she?s sick, and her friends are dead, and that?s from > serving in the 2003 conflict. I have been following the bill and talking > to her. Yesterday, she testified twice at the United Nations. I said, ?Why > don?t we get this bill all over the U.S. in state legislatures because it > informs the public and get the local media to cover it.? > The U.S. has blocked any accountability at international and national > levels. There?s a total cover-up just like with Agent Orange, the atomic > veterans, MKULTRA, the mind control experiments the CIA did. This is more > of the same, but the issue is much, much worse because the genetic future > of all those contaminated is effected. Now vast regions around our world, > as well as our atmosphere, are contaminated with the depleted uranium. > They?ve used so much. It?s the equivalent number of atoms, as the Japanese > professor calculated it, to over 400,000 Nagasaki bombs that has been > released into the atmosphere. That?s really an underestimate. > I went to Louisiana in April. I was invited to speak at the University of > New Orleans for three days. One of the veterans asked me to be in their > April 19 protest and rally through the City of New Orleans. He took the > Connecticut bill straight to the Legislature, and he got two legislators > to sponsor it, and he said, ?Just whiteout the name ?Connecticut? and > write in ?Louisiana? on the bill.? You?re not going to believe it. It > passed 101 to 0 yesterday in the Louisiana House. > I want you to write about it because we want it (the DU testing bill) in > Texas. Nevada is going to introduce it. Congressman Jim McDermott is going > to put it into the Washington legislature. We want to get the governor of > Montana to do it because he?s the first governor to demand his National > Guard be returned. I think half of them are back. He said, ?I need them in > the state.? > The DU issue is just really, really, really, really so awful. I don?t > think there?s any greater tragedy in the history of the world in what > they?ve done. > > > ICONOCLAST: Is there a danger of depleted uranium, being used in weaponry > over there, spreading by air over here? > > > MORET: The atmosphere globally is contaminated with it. It?s completely > mixed in one year. I?m an expert on atmospheric dust. I?m a geoscientist, > a geologist, and that?s what I studied and did my research on. It?s really > a fascinating subject. We have huge dust storms that are a million square > miles and transport millions of tons of dust and sand every year around > the world. > The main centers of these dust storms are the Gobi Desert in China, which > is where the Chinese did atmospheric testing, so that?s all contaminated > with radiation, and it gets transported right over Japan, and it comes > straight across the Pacific and dumps all its sand and dust on the U.S., > North America. It?s loaded with radioactive isotopes, soot, pesticides, > chemicals, pollution ? everything is in it ? fungi, bacteria, viruses. > The Sahara Desert is another huge dust center, and it goes up all over > Europe and straight across the Atlantic, to the Caribbean, and up the East > Coast. Of course, you get it in Texas with those hurricanes. They all > originate in the Sahara Desert. > The third region is the Western United States, which is where the Nevada > test site is located. We did 1,200 nuclear weapons tests there, so all > this radiation that is already there, which is bad enough, has caused a > global cancer epidemic since 1945. All of that radiation was the > equivalent of 40,000 Nagasaki bombs. We?re talking about 10 times more. > In April of 2003, the World Health Organization said they expect global > cancer rates to increase 50 percent by the year 2020. > Infant mortality is going up again all over the world. This is an > indicator of the level of radioactive pollution. > When the U.S. and Russia signed the partial test ban treaty in 1963, the > infant mortality rate started dropping again, which is normal. > Now they are going up again. It?s the global pollution with this > radiation. > > > ICONOCLAST: I had one of our correspondents send me a series of > photographs of the Al-Asad dust storm in Iraq on April 28. > > > MORET: That dust is what I?m talking about. > > > ICONOCLAST: In the picture you can see a gigantic wall of sand. > > > MORET: I have 16 pictures of that storm. They?re posted with photos from > Iraqi doctors of the children of people with cancer and leukemia. So what > did you think of that dust storm? > > > ICONOCLAST: I thought it was really dramatic. > > > MORET: It remobilizes all the radiation, but those are the larger chunks. > The DU burns at such high temperatures. It?s a pyroforic metal which means > it burns. The bullets and big caliber shells are actually on fire when > they come out of the gun barrel because they are ignited by the friction > in the gun barrel. Seventy percent of the DU metal becomes a metal vapor. > It?s actually a radioactive gas weapon and a terrain contaminant. > I?ll email you the URL of the 1943 memo to General Leslie Grove under the > Manhattan Project. It?s the blueprint for depleted uranium. They dropped > the atomic bombs, but they did not use the DU weapons because they thought > they were too horrific. > I?ve toured and gone all over Japan with a pediatrician in Basra and an > oncologist, a cancer specialist. These poor doctors ? their whole families > are dying of cancer. He has 10 members of his family with cancer now that > he?s treating, and this is just from Gulf War I. They?ve used much, much, > much more in 2003. All over the whole country. > > > ICONOCLAST: What can soldiers expect when they come home? > > > MORET: If they were in Bradley Fighting Vehicles, they?re coming home with > rectal cancer from sitting on ammunition boxes. The young women are > reporting terrible problems with endometriosis. That?s the lining of the > uterus malfunctioning, and they just bleed and bleed and bleed. Some of > them have uterine cancer ? 18 and 19 and 20 year olds. > The Army will not even diagnose it. They send them back to the > battlefields. They won?t treat them or diagnose them. A group of 20 > soldiers pushed from Kuwait to Baghdad in 2003 in all the fighting. Eight > of those 20 soldiers have malignancies. > > > ICONOCLAST: Does exposure to depleted uranium effect their psychological > background when they come home? > > > MORET: Depleted uranium are these particles that form at very high > temperatures. They are uranium oxides that are insoluble. They are at > least 100 times smaller than a white blood cell, so when the soldiers > breathe, they inhale them. The particles go through the nose, go through > the olfactory and into the brain, and it messes up their cognitive > abilities, thought processes. > It damages their mood-control mechanism in the brain. Four soldiers at > Fort Bragg came back from Afghanistan, and within two months, those four > had murdered their wives. This is part of the damage to the brain from the > radiation and the particles. > The soldiers from Gulf War I in a group of 67 soldiers who came back, they > had DU in their equipment, in their clothes, in their bodies, in their > semen, and they had normal babies before they went over there to war. They > came back, and the VA did a study. Of 251 Gulf War I veterans in > Mississippi, in 67 percent of them, thier babies born after the war were > deemed to have severe birth defects. They had brains missing, arms and > legs missing, organs missing. They were born without eyes. They had > horrible blood diseases. It?s horrific. > If you want to look at something, Life magazine did a photo essay which is > still on the Internet. It?s called ?The Tiny Victims of Desert Storm.? You > should look at that ? oh, my God, the post-Gulf War babies playing with > their brothers and sisters who are normal. > Basically, it?s like smoking crack, only you?re smoking radioactive crack. > It goes straight into the blood stream. It?s carried all throughout the > body into the bones, the bone marrow, the brain. It goes into the fetus. > It?s a systemic poison and a radiological poison. > > > ICONOCLAST: What about the people in the United States that are here? You > say that DU is being mixed and spread globally? > > > MORET: Yes, it?s being mixed globally. We?re getting secondary smoke. It?s > the secondary smoke effect. You know the people who inhabit a room with > smokers? They are getting that secondary smoke, and so are we. > > > ICONOCLAST: Is that secondary smoke getting thicker as we speak? > > > MORET: Yeah, the concentration of the depleted uranium particles in the > atmosphere all around the globe is increasing. There are indications that > the U.S. will go in June and bomb the heck out of Iran. We?re monitoring > the U.S. Army ammunition factories. They have very large orders for those > huge bunker buster bombs that have 5,000 lbs. of DU in the warhead. > > > ICONOCLAST: So the prognosis for America isn?t really good? > > > MORET: No, it?s really bad. > > > ICONOCLAST: And if this continues then? > > > MORET: It?s going to kill off the world?s population. It already is, and > it doesn?t just effect people. It effects all living systems. The plants, > the animals, the bacteria. It effects everything. > > > ICONOCLAST: So the things that we eat for instance, if they have DU in > them, then we?ll just get it in our systems, and so we?re polluting the > oceans, so that could effect all marine life? > > > MORET: Yes, it?s in the air, water, and soil. The half-life of DU, Uranium > 238, is 4.5 billion years the age of the Earth. > > > ICONOCLAST: With the damage that?s been done to this point, can we turn > back? We can?t clean it up? > > > MORET: There?s no way to clean it up. What happens is these tiny particles > float around the Earth. There are still plutonium and uranium floating > around the Earth from bomb testing. These particles are so tiny that > molecules bumping into them keep them lofted in the air, and so the only > way for them to get out of the atmosphere is rain, snow, fog, pollution, > which will clear them out of the air and deposit them in the environment. > What happens is the surface of these particles gets wetted by the moisture > in the air. They come down and land on stuff and stick to it like a glue. > You can?t ever get the particles off whatever they?re sticking to because > have you ever put a drop of water on a microscope slide and then put > another one on top of it? Can you pull those apart? > > > ICONOCLAST: No. > > > MORET: Okay, that?s the same effect that happens to radioactive particles. > Once they are removed from the atmosphere, they stick to any surfaces they > land on. In a way they are removed from circulation from the atmosphere. > You can?t wash them off. If it keeps raining or they?re in a creek, you > know, if they?re on rocks or stones or something in a creek, they won?t > even wash off. > You didn?t know it was this bad, did you? > > > ICONOCLAST: No, I knew it was bad, but I thought it was fairly isolated. > > > MORET: No. What is over there (in Iraq) is over here in about four days. I > don?t know if you followed Chernobyl. That big bubble of radiation went > around and around the world, but this is dust. It becomes a part of > atmospheric dust. Like the dust storm you saw in that photo, it goes > everywhere. > > > ICONOCLAST: Is it in the upper levels of the atmosphere or the lower > levels? > > > MORET: It?s in lower orbital space. > They brought the Mir spacecraft back down to Earth when they got done > using it, and there was something called a space midge which covered the > electronics on the outside of the spacecraft and protected it from > radiation that comes from the sun because electronics are real vulnerable > to radiation. They analyzed the surface of that space net and found > uranium and uranium decayed products which they said came from atmospheric > testing or burned up spacecraft with nuclear materials or nuclear reactors > on board. Uranium can also come from supernovas, but they thought that the > most likely sources were atmospheric testing and the nuclear materials we > put in space. > > > ICONOCLAST: Essentially then, you?re saying that we?re conducting a > nuclear war. > > > MORET: Yes, and that?s exactly what it is. We?ve conducted four nuclear > wars since 1991. Yeah, these are nuclear wars. DU is a nuclear weapon. > > > ICONOCLAST: From the point of view of a scientist, what needs to happen to > correct this? > > > MORET: Well, we need to stop the use of it. We?ve built an international > movement to stop the use, the manufacture, the storage, the sales, and the > deployment of depleted uranium weapons. > > > ICONOCLAST: Are the munitions we sell to other countries contained with > depleted uranium? > > > MORET: We have. In 1968 the first depleted uranium weapons systems that we > found a patent for suddenly appeared in the U.S. patent office. It was for > the Navy. It was sort of a Gatling gun style weapon system that you > mounted on ships. It rapidly fires like 2,500 bullets a minute. It?s over > 3,000 now. They?ve improved the design. Then in 1973, we gave depleted > uranium weapons systems to the Israelis and supervised their use. They > used them in the Arab-Israeli war and completely wiped out the Arabs in > five days. Then the show was on the road. That was the first actual > battlefield demonstration of this new weapon system. > Hughes Aircraft developed the full-length system which is for the Navy. > That?s the Gatling gun system. They still use it. That was produced in > 1974 and tested. Within six months the U.S. government had sold the DU > weapons system to 12 entities which included many branches of the U.S. > military and other counties. We?ve sold DU weapons systems to about ? we > don?t know exactly for sure ? it?s been about 12 or 17 countries. The good > news is that normally such a weapons system that effective would have been > sold to 80, 100, or 120 countries by now. But because of the radiological, > biological, and environmental hazard, countries were not only afraid to > buy it, the ones who did buy it are afraid to use it. The only countries > we know that have used DU are Britain, the U.S., and Israel. > The United Nations in 1996 passed a resolution that depleted uranium > weapons are weapons of mass destruction, and they are illegal under all > international laws and treaties. > In 2001, the European Parliament passed a resolution on DU. What happened > is that the NATO forces went into Yugoslavia in 1998 and ?99 and flew > 39,000 bombing runs and completely bombed Yugoslavia into radioactive > rubble. Germany and the U.S. made the most money on the destruction of > Yugoslavia, and they made sure that countries that didn?t know about the > DU, that the peacekeepers from those countries like from Italy and > Portugal, were sent to the most contaminated regions in Yugoslavia. > Germans and Americans didn?t send their own troops into those areas. They > were in the least contaminated areas. These poor soldiers from other > countries came back and died within weeks or in a couple of days or > months. The parents in Portugal and Italy are furious and went to the > Parliament and media, and there was just a huge media storm of articles > about DU. > The cat was out of the bag because of the 1998 NATO invasion of > Yugoslavia. The cat was out of the bag, but Japanese troops have been sent > into Somawa. They?re self-defense forces. It was the most contaminated > area where the heaviest fighting happened in Iraq. We can expect those > soldiers to be really, really sick. > > > ICONOCLAST: What about Iraq itself? What?s been done thus far? > > > MORET: It?s uninhabitable. The whole country. Yugoslavia, Iraq, and > Afghanistan are completely uninhabitable. > > > ICONOCLAST: But people live there, so they?re going to live there > suffering? > > > MORET: Well, you can see from the birth defects and the illnesses that it > is pretty severe. Each year the number of birth defects and illnesses will > rise because of the total contamination levels in all living things will > increase because they are breathing that air and drinking water and eating > the food from contaminated soils. It?s just a slow death sentence. The > same with Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. > Depleted uranium is a very, very, very effective biological weapon. This > is the primary purpose for using it. Marion Falk (a retired chemical > physicist who built nuclear bombs for more than 20 years at Lawrence > Livermore lab), who is the Manhattan Project scientist I work with, taught > me pretty much everything about radiation and particles and DU. He said > the purpose of weapons used by the military is not only to injure and kill > the enemy soldiers, but the purpose is to kill, maim, and disease the > civilian population because it reduces the productivity of a country and > pretty soon a lot of their resources are going to be used for taking care > of sick people. They will have fewer and fewer healthy workers. > Of course, once you cause mutation in the DNA, that damage is passed on to > future generations of that affected person or animal or plant. DNA does > not repair itself. > > > ICONOCLAST: So the mutations would be probably destructive moreso than > constructive. > > > MORET: Oh, the mutations are causing those birth defects. > > > ICONOCLAST: They?re not evolutionary diseases? > > > MORET: No, they are evolutionary. They are inherited by all future > generations and passed on. It?s like if you have red hair and all of your > future generations will have that gene. > > > ICONOCLAST: So if I had a precondition to heart disease because of the > radiation, then the generation that would come after me would have the > same problem? > > > MORET: Well, if you damage the cell or parts of the cell or functioning of > cells, that doesn?t necessarily damage the DNA. There are two kinds of > damage: one damages the cells of the living organism, and that may not be > passed on, but if you damage the DNA in the egg or the sperm, that is > passed on to all future generations. > > > ICONOCLAST: So the guys coming back from the war, their sperm is probably > going to be ? > > > MORET: Damaged. Yes. They also have depleted uranium in their semen. When > they?re intimate with their partners, they internally contaminate them > with depleted uranium. The women become sick themselves. They have > depleted uranium in their bodies, and there is something called burning > syndrome. Just absolutely horrible. You can read about it in an article by > David Rose in the December Vanity Fair. It?s on the Internet. > A friend of mine is the widow of a Canadian Gulf War veteran. David Rose > interviewed her, and she griped about the burning semen. She said, ?I had > 20 condoms full of frozen peas in my freezer at all times, and after we > were intimate, I would insert one into my vagina, and that is the only way > I could bear the pain from the burning semen.? And it goes through > condoms, too. > > > ICONOCLAST: Gosh, durn! > > > MORET: Yeah, you should see the high school classes when I talk about the > burning semen and the internal contamination. The girls? mouths go into > little round Os, and the boys start panicking because they?re like, ?I?ll > never get sick!? (laughs) The name of this article is ?Weapons of > Self-Destruction.? > > > ICONOCLAST: How much DU will it take to kill off all known life on this > planet? > > > MORET: The amount of radiation released is certainly going to have a very, > very profound global impact, and we?re already seeing infant mortality > increasing globally. The fetus is the most susceptible to radiation damage > because all the cells are rapidly dividing, the limbs and the bodies > developing, so when you start introducing toxic chemicals and radiation, > it really damages the natural process of fetal development. > The reason they were able to convince the Senate to sign the partial test > ban treaty in 1963 was because of the increase in infant mortality. It had > been dropping and declining two or three percent for quite a long time > each year because of better prenatal care and educating mothers. > Infant mortality started going up after the bombs were dropped on > Hiroshima and Nagasaki, especially in the ?50s when the big bomb testing > started. > By 1963, it was really obvious that the bomb testing globally was having a > real impact on the unborn. They signed the partial test ban treaty. Russia > and the U.S. stopped atmospheric testing, and the infant mortality rate > started going down right away. They?re going up again now. This is global > radioactive pollution, and how long it would take to eliminate all life is > something nobody knows, but the depleted uranium is a very, very effective > biological weapon. > There are two purposes for the military use of weapons. One is to destroy > the enemy soldiers, and the other, which is just as important, is to > destroy the enemy civilian population. By causing illnesses and disease, > long lingering illnesses really impact the productivity and the economy of > a country. It was Chernobyl and other nuclear disasters that actually > destroyed the Soviet Union because the former Soviet Union is very, very > sick from all the radiation that was released. They were much more > sloppier than we were. > I have a World Health Organization world health survey which they > published in the Journal of American Medical Association last June. The > impact of atmospheric testing is very, very apparent by the percentage of > population in each country they investigated for some form of mental > illness. For instance, Japan is 8.8 percent. Nigeria is very low ? 4.7 > percent. They have almost no radiation in Nigeria. In the Ukraine where > they had the Chernobyl accident, it is 20.4 percent. Spain is at 9.2 > percent. Italy is 8.2 percent. It?s pretty low because they don?t have > nuke plants. France is 75 percent reliant on nuclear power, so you have > mental illness in 18.4 percent of the population. Mexico is at 12.2 > percent, and the United States is at 26.3 percent ? the highest rate of > mental illness in the world. > And George Bush and his siblings were all exposed in utero to bomb testing > fallout in the United States. He had a toddler sister who died of leukemia > when she was about three. > I worked with a group called the Radiation And Public Health Project. > Their website is . We are all radiation specialists, > well-known scientists, and independent scientists. We?ve collected 6,000 > baby teeth around nuclear power plants and measured the radiation in them, > and one of our members is the neighbor of the women who worked with all of > the Bush children, including President Bush himself, because they had > severe learning disabilities. > > > ICONOCLAST: How do we know that the Bush children were exposed? > > > MORET: By the year of their birth. The year they were carried by their > mother. You have to look at how much bomb testing material was released > into the atmosphere, and there?s a direct correlation to the decline in > SAT scores for all teenagers in the U.S. to the amount of radiation that > was released into the atmosphere the year their mother was carrying them. > These are delayed effects of radiation exposure in utero. > > > ICONOCLAST: So they were living in Connecticut, but they were still > feeling the effects of the radiation in Nevada? > > > MORET: Two years ago the U.S. government admitted that every single person > living in the United States between 1957 and 1963 was internally exposed > to radiation. So for any pregnant woman during those years, her fetus was > exposed. > > > ICONOCLAST: What type of radiation levels are we talking about? > > > MORET: It?s low levels, and the main pathways are drinking water and dairy > products. It even killed the baby fish in the Atlantic. Strontium-90 is a > man-made isotope that comes out of nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors. > They measured the levels of strontium-90 in milk in Norway from the 1950s > up until the 1970s, and they measured the decline in the fishing catch in > that same period, and as the strontium-90 increased in the milk in Norway, > fishing catches declined. > By 1963, when the U.S. tested a nuclear bomb almost every day (they did > 250 tests in one year because the treaty was going to be signed), the > fishing catch declined by 50 percent. In the Pacific, it declined 60 > percent because there was Russian, Chinese, French, and U.S. testing in > the Pacific. > > > ICONOCLAST: So we?re still eating those contaminated fish today. Has the > genetic code been changed? > > > MORET: The oceans are getting whatever is getting rained down, snowed > down, or fogged down from the atmosphere. It?s getting into the oceans. > This big frog die-off, which is global, is certainly related to the > radiation in the rainwater. It?s a global nuclear holocaust. It effects > all living things. That?s why they call it ?omnicide,? which means it > kills all living things ? the plants, the animals, the bacteria. > Everything. > > > ICONOCLAST: You think we ought to have the Weather Channel report on the > current sand storm conditions in Iraq so we can prepare four days in > advance for the radiation? > > > MORET: I?ll tell you what I did when 9/11 happened. > I called all the doctors with Radiation And Public Health Project, and I > said, ?Get out of town, and don?t come back until it has rained three > times.? One lived 12 miles downwind from the Pentagon. She went out on her > balcony with her geiger counter. I said, ?Get that geiger counter out of > your purse.? We had just done a press conference in San Francisco, and I > knew she had it in her purse. Well, the radiation levels were 8-10 times > higher than background. > We called the EPA, HAZMAT, FBI, and said, ?Get all those emergency > response workers suited up. They need to be protected.? Two days after > 9/11, the EPA radiation expert for that region called back and said, ?Yup, > the Pentagon crash rubble was radioactive, and we believe it?s depleted > uranium, but we?re not worried about that. It?s only harmful if it?s > inhaled.? > He said, ?We?re worried about the lead solder in the plane.? Well, you > know what?s in Tomahawk missiles? They have depleted uranium warheads. The > radioactive crash rubble contaminated with DU is evidence of a DU warhead. > > > ICONOCLAST: I did not think about that, but going back to my original > question: Should the Weather Channel report for us on the toxic dust > storms in Iraq? > > > MORET: But how could people get away from them? These dust storms are a > million square miles. They?re huge, and they come right across the > Atlantic, the Caribbean, and Texas coast line, and right up the East > Coast. There are people who are going to leave the state every time > there?s a hurricane It?s in the food, drinking water, dairy products, and > then the problem with Uranium 238, which is 99.39 percent DU, is that it > decays in over 20 steps into other radioactive isotopes. > That?s why I call it the ?Trojan Horse.? It?s the weapon that keeps > giving. It keeps killing. This is like smoking radioactive crack. It goes > right in your nose. It crosses the olfactory bulb into your brain. It?s a > systemic poison. It goes everywhere. These particles that form at very > high temperatures ? 5,000-10,000 degrees C ? are nanoparticles. They are a > 10th of a micron or smaller. A 10th of a micron is 100 times smaller than > a white blood cell. They get picked up in the lipids and probably the > cholesterol and go right through the cell membranes of the cell. They > screw up the cell processes. They screw up the signaling between the cells > because the cells all talk to each other and coordinate what they?re > doing. It messes up brain function. > > > ICONOCLAST: Do you know what Iraq was like before the first Gulf War? > > > MORET: Iraq prior to the 1991 Gulf War was the most advanced in the entire > Middle East. They had scrupulous databases of the health problems and > disease rates, which is why the U.S. bombed all of the offices in the > Ministry of Health. We destroyed all those records so that a pre-Gulf War > health base could not be established to show how much these diseases have > increased. This would concern the U.S. in terms of compensation for war > crimes. > In these horrible U.N. sanctions, they (the Iraqis) could never get all of > the protocol medicine for the treatment of leukemia. They (the U.N.) would > say, ?These steps of the leukemia treatment were components in weapons, so > you can?t have that.? They never gave the people the full proper protocols > in the areas of treatment they needed to get rid of the leukemia. It hid > the effects of the depleted uranium because the children were starving. > They had malnutrition. They had the healthiest population in the Middle > East (prior to Gulf War I). > > > ICONOCLAST: Let?s talk about the children of Iraq. > > > MORET: After the Gulf War, they had maybe one baby a week born with birth > defects in the hospitals in Basra. Now they are having 10-12 a day. The > levels of uranium are increasing in the population every year. Every day, > people are eating and drinking while the whole environment is > contaminated. Just what you?d expect. There are more babies born with > birth defects, and the birth defects are getting more and more severe. > An Iraqi doctor told me that babies are being born now that are lumps of > flesh. She said that they don?t have heads or legs or arms. It?s just a > lump of flesh. This also happened to populations that were not removed > from islands in the Pacific when the bomb tests occurred. Basically, > governments were using them as guinea pigs. > > > ICONOCLAST: So all the countries that were equipped with nuclear weapons > are guilty of those atrocities. > > > MORET: They were all doing it. France, Russia. China, and the U.S. And I?m > not sure if Britain did bomb testing. They were real low key about it. > > > ICONOCLAST: Where are the radiation hot spots in the United States? > > > MORET: In the United States, it would be within a 100 miles of nuclear > power plants. We have 110 nuclear power plants in the U.S. We have the > most of any country in the world, but only a 103 are operating. Almost all > of the entire East Coast. > What we did was we took government data from the Centers of Disease > Control on breast cancer deaths between 1985 and 1989. Anywhere from > within a 100 miles of a nuclear power plant is where two-thirds of all > breast cancer deaths occurred in the U.S. between 1985 and 1989. > It?s also around the nuclear weapons laboratories. That would be Los > Alamos in New Mexico, the Idaho Nuclear Engineering Lab in Idaho, and > Hanford in Washington State, which is where they got the plutonium for all > the bombs. They contaminated the entire Columbia River watershed and > almost the whole state of Washington. > It gets into the water and into the plants and into the vegetation. If you > eat clams or mussels or crabs or things like that, even certain kinds of > fish that eat off of the mud at the bottom of the river, you have much > higher levels of radiation in your tissues. It depends on each person and > on how healthy they are, but this man from Washington State died suddenly. > He was in his late 40s. They did an autopsy, and he was full of > radioactive zinc. They went, ?Where in the world did he get this? It only > comes from nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors.? They studied his diet and > discovered he loved to eat oysters. They found out where he bought his > oysters and found the oyster beds. They were 200 miles off shore, from > Washington State. The radiation was being carried off out to sea from the > coastline. It was passing over this oyster bed. The oysters were just > gobbling them up. > > > ICONOCLAST: What are the symptoms of DU poisoning? > > > MORET: Soldiers on the battlefield have reported a metallic taste in their > mouth. That?s the actual taste of the uranium metal. Then within 24-48 > hours, soldiers on the battlefield have reported that they felt sick. They > start getting muscle aches, and they lose energy. Some of them came back > incontinent. In other words, in adult diapers. > One woman reported that the first night home, she wanted to be intimate > with her husband, but she had absolutely no feeling. She couldn?t feel > anything from the waist down. This particulate matter damages the > neuromuscular system, the nerves; it just goes everywhere. And there?s no > treatment for it. These particles are very, very insoluble, so they can?t > even dissolve in body fluids, so they can be excreted from the body. Then > they keep releasing. Even when uranium decays, it turns into another > radioactive isotope. So it?s a particle that just sits there shooting > bullets until you die. > Another problem is that soldiers have crumbling teeth. Teeth just start > falling apart. The uranium replaces calcium in the calcium-phosphate > structure of the teeth. Some have complained about grand mal seizures, > cerebral palsy. Some diseases reported at very high rates in Air Force and > Army soldiers are Parkinson?s disease, Lou Gehrig?s disease, and Hodgkin?s > disease. This is damage to the mitochondria in the cells and the nerves. > The mitochondria make all the energy for the body, so when you damage > mitochondria, another symptom is chronic fatigue syndrome. There?s just > not enough energy produced by the body to function normally. > I found a study in the SanDia Nuclear Weapons Laboratory employee > newsletter in September 2003. They are doing major studies in > mitochondrial disfunction related to Lou Gehrig?s, Hodgkin?s, and > Parkinson?s diseases for veterans. Since it?s at a nuclear weapon?s lab, > they are fully aware of the health damage. > > > ICONOCLAST: Tell me about the tests that detect for DU in the body. > > > MORET: The chromosome test in the best indicator. It?s $5,000. The urine > test is a $1,000. If you test positive with the urine test, you know > you?re contaminated. If you test negative, it does not mean that you?re > not contaminated. It just means that you may or may not be contaminated > but enough hasn?t dissolved in your blood stream to go through your > kidneys to be excreted in your urine. Anyone who goes now cannot avoid > being contaminated. Anyone. Anyone. Anyone. Everyone who goes to the > Middle East and Afghanistan will be contaminated. > The DU issue affects every single living thing on this planet. What else > has that impact? They have altered the genome for the entire planet > forever with this DU. The Pentagon people say, ?You?re exaggerating or you > use the uranium word to scare people.? I don?t care if people believe me > or not. All I can say is that over time what I am saying will actually be > an underestimation of the long term effects. > > What Is Depleted Uranium? > > A Scientific Perspective > Interview with Leuren Moret, Geo-Scientist > A Military Perspective > Interview with Dr. Doug Rokke, Ph.D, former Director of the U.S. Army > Depleted Uranium Project > A Survivor?s Perpsective > Interview with Melissa Sterry, Gulf War Veteran who is surviving the > effects of depleted uranium > > http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/News/19news03.htm > > ============================================================ > > Tues., May 31-Fri., Jun. 3: National Iraq Call-In Week. Urge your > member of Congress to support legislation for the withdrawal of > troops from Iraq. Sponsors: Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), > Code Pink, Peace Action, United for Peace & Justice (UFPJ), others. > Info: UFPJ, 212-868- 5545, http://www.unitedforpeace.org > > Tues., May 31-Sat., Jun. 4: Book tour: Stop the Next War Now, 70 > essays edited by Medea Benjamin (Global Exchange)... > Info: booktour.globalexchange.org & > http://www.globalexchange.org > > > > > --------------------------------- > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site! > > > > -- > Coalition for Peace and Justice > UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood > NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982 > ncohen12@comcast.net; http://www.unplugsalem.org > http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org > > "A time comes when silence is betrayal. > Even when pressed by the demands of > inner truth, men do not easily assume > the task of opposing their government's > policy, especially in time of war. > Nor does the human spirit move without > great difficulty against all the apathy > of conformist thought, within one's own > bosom and in the surrounding world." > > - Martin Luther King Jr. > > From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Wed Jun 1 21:13:11 2005 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Wed Jun 1 21:13:25 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sellafield "accident" Message-ID: <01a101c566dd$f408f340$bf572fd5@pc1> Is there anybody who knows some details about the Sellafield-accident? Where did the leakage occur? How much of various radionuclides were really discharged into the sump? Etc. etc. Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone (international) -43-699-1168-1319 phone (national) 0699-1168-1319 From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Wed Jun 1 21:21:56 2005 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Wed Jun 1 21:22:10 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Shutdown of Barsebaeck 2 Message-ID: <01a801c566df$2fa43d00$bf572fd5@pc1> The nuclear power plant at Barsebaeck 2 was finally shut down a few seconds before midnight yesterday. I checked at noon (MET) today three very wide spread Swedish Newspapers on-line editions, but only one reported this. Should I take this for a sign, that Swedish people are not so much interested and influenced by the nuclear discussion? Cautiously I think that the resistance against new nuclear power plants is declining .. Best regards. Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone (international) -43-699-1168-1319 phone (national) 0699-1168-1319 From frantaj at aecl.ca Wed Jun 1 21:32:04 2005 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Wed Jun 1 21:32:25 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Shutdown of Barsebaeck 2 Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A382@sps13.aecl.ca> Franz, Here's some more info on this & related Swedish issues...... Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Barseb?ck-2 Closure Set To Go Ahead After Court Rejects Appeals NucNet Source: Barseb?ck nuclear power plant Editor: David Dalton 2005 May 31 Sweden's Barseb?ck-2 reactor unit was set to be permanently shut down today, 31st May 2005, following a Swedish Supreme Administrative Court decision to dismiss appeals that may have kept it operating. More than 300 people had lodged appeals against a government decision to close the 600-megawatt boiling water reactor unit, including officials from the local municipality who claimed the closure violated Swedish environmental and industrial laws as well as EU legislation (see Briefs No. 7, 20th January 2005). But a spokesman for Barseb?ck nuclear power plant, near Malmo in the south of the country, confirmed to NucNet on 30th May 2005 that the court had dismissed the appeals and the unit's closure would go ahead as scheduled. The closure decision, announced in October 2004, followed what the government described as failure to reach an agreement with the power industry on the details and timetable for a voluntary phase-out of Sweden's nuclear facilities (see News No. 191, 6th October 2004). Barseb?ck-1 closed permanently in November 1999 under a cash and shares compensation deal with owners Sydkraft (see News No. 484, 30th November 1999). The Barseb?ck nuclear power plant is jointly owned by Sydkraft and national energy company Vattenfall. =================================================== Sweden shuts down second nuclear reactor in phase-out plan Agence France Presse English Tue 31 May 2005 STOCKHOLM, May 31 (AFP) - Sweden will shut down its Barsebaeck 2 nuclear reactor at the stroke of midnight on Tuesday, the second reactor to be taken out of service in the country since 1999. Sweden plans to phase out nuclear power, which still accounts for nearly half of the Scandinavian country's energy supply, over the next 30 or so years. The first reactor at Barsebaeck was shut down in 1999. Barsebaeck 2 accounts for 3.75 percent of Sweden's total electricity production. The country voted in a non-binding referendum in 1980 to phase out its 12 nuclear reactors by 2010, but that target was abandoned in 1997 after officials acknowledged that there would not be sufficient alternative energy sources to replace the nuclear output. In October 2004, the minority Social Democratic government clinched a deal on the Barsebaeck 2 reactor in southwestern Sweden with the formerly agrarian Center Party and the Left Party. Under that deal, the government will promote the use of wind power, biofuels, solar energy and hydro power to replace the lost nuclear energy, as consumers will be obliged to buy a pre-determined amount of electricity produced from these so-called "clean" sources. Natural gas will also be used during a transition period. Yet a poll published just weeks after the October 2004 agreement was reached showed that a whopping 80 percent of Swedes were in favor of maintaining or expanding the country's nuclear facilities. Only 16 percent of those questioned said they wanted the nuclear plants to be dismantled. The pro-nuclear sentiment in Sweden is thought to be linked to worries that ridding the country of nuclear power would further boost electricity prices, which have sky-rocketed by 50 percent on average since the deregulation of its energy market eight years ago. Including Barsebaeck 2, Sweden's 11 nuclear reactors, located at four separate plants, currently make up about half of the country's electricity production. Experts say nuclear production is likely to fall to 44 percent by 2010, or 31 percent of total energy consumption. Modelled on Germany's plans to phase out nuclear energy, the programme says existing plants should continue running as long as they "contribute economically", which means, in effect, until the end of their normal operating lives. In a few years the government will begin to look at the oldest reactors to determine which should be shut down next. ============================================= NUCLEAR NEWS FLASHES - Friday, May 20, 2005 INTERNATIONAL NEWS: --SWEDISH VICE PRIME MINISTER BOSSE RINGHOLM WOULD NOT ANSWER DIRECTLY yesterday when asked in the Riksdag (parliament) whether the government would accept state-owned Vattenfall investing in a new French nuclear reactor. However he said that when operating outside Sweden, utility management should "obviously follow the laws in those other countries." Ringholm added that Vattenfall needs to operate outside of Sweden to remain competitive. The Swedish government, however, is officially committed to decommissioning nuclear in Sweden. Green lawmaker Ingegerd Saarinen put the question to Ringholm during a general question-and-answer session, citing a May 19 story in Nucleonics Week that suggested Vattenfall subsidiary Vattenfall Europe is considering such an investment, if approved by Swedish headquarters. Vattenfall does not have operations in France, but has been criticized in Sweden for its ownership of German nuclear and coal-fired power. ========================================= Sweden approves uranium search AP, Tuesday, April 26, 2005 A Canadian company has received permission to take specimens for possible uranium deposits in four places in northern Sweden, a Swedish Radio report said Sunday. Toronto-based Continental Precious Minerals was permitted to investigate bedrock for three years in the province of Jamtland and Lapland, one of Sweden's northernmost regions. ================================ Swedish Support For Nuclear Rising 25 Years After Phase-Out Referendum NucNet Source: Hans Ehdwall, KSU Editor: Daniel MacIsaac 2005 March 24 A new public opinion poll indicates a continued rise in the support for the use of nuclear energy in Sweden over the past two years. According to the poll, the average level of support has been on the rise between November 2003 and March 2005. Overall the poll results are consistent with those of a previous poll from October 2004 which, like the latest poll, was also conducted by Swedish polling organisation TEMO on behalf of the country's Nuclear Training and Safety Centre (KSU) (see News in Brief No. 47, 2nd November 2004). KSU said the results of the new poll, involving telephone interviews with 1,027 Swedes between 28th February and 3rd March 2005, "show a clear majority for nuclear power as an energy source". A minority of poll respondents (13%) supports the early closure of Sweden's 11 operational nuclear power units. More than four out of five of respondents (83%) want to maintain the operation of those units or replace them with new ones. Specifically, 34% of respondents want to maintain the current units as long as they continue to meet the safety demands of the Swedish authorities; 30% said it is acceptable to replace older units shut down because of reasons of safety with new units; 19% favour expanding the use of nuclear and building additional units; 13% favour a quick phase-out of nuclear energy; and 4% are undecided. On choosing among environmental priorities, 82% of respondents said Sweden's priority should be preventing an increase in greenhouse gas emissions; 11% said it should be the protection of the country's remaining undeveloped rivers against hydroelectric power development; 4% said it should be the phase-out of nuclear power; while 3% were undecided. The latest poll and the overall positive opinion toward the use of nuclear energy comes some 25 years after a national referendum favoured its phase-out in Sweden. It also follows all four Swedish nuclear plants reporting record production figures for 2004 (see News No. 15, 24th January 2005) and confirmation by the Swedish government that electricity generation at unit two of the Barsebaeck nuclear power plant must end by 31st May 2005 (see News No. 217, 17th December 2004). ======================================== NUCLEONICS WEEK MARCH 24, 2005 Swedish opposition leaders say build new units, keep old running Nuclear power should be considered as environmentally friendly as renewable energy and Sweden should build more reactors instead of decommissioning its units, leaders of the country's Liberal Party said last week. In an energy policy program they plan to present to the party's congress in August, a working group said that new units should be built at Ringhals, Forsmark, and Oskarshamn. In addition, they said that the government should reverse its decision to shut Barsebaeck-2, now slated to happen no later than May 31. Barsebaeck-1, shut by government order in November 1999, should be restarted they added. "Politicians are not the best (people) to determine when a reactor should be shut," the working group said in its program. "Reactors should be shut when a competent authority determines they no longer meet safety or environmental requirements or when their owners chose to do so for economic reasons." With an eye toward defeating the Social Democrats, who run a minority government, in the 2006 election, the Liberals have been making nuclear a high-profile issue. The Social Democrats are hoping to avoid discussion of nuclear during the campaign. The working group included former IAEA director general Hans Blix, the party member who successfully championed a controlled phase-out of nuclear during the 1980 national referendum on decommissioning. That was a middle ground between an immediate phase-out and no phase-out, and also allowed those units under construction at the time to be finished and placed on line. But working group members said that the voters' decision in the referendum is no longer valid, because the situation is completely different today than it was 25 years ago. "We know today that sun and wind, which many hoped could replace nuclear, do not have that potential," they said. In addition they said more nuclear is the only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet reduction targets set under the Kyoto Protocol. The group added that more than 50% of Swedes were too young to vote in the 1980 referendum and asked: "Is it reasonable that many of those affected by the referendum couldn't influence the decision?" Swedish law prohibits research which would lead to development and construction of nuclear power. The Liberals called for that law to be nullified. They added that better technology and more efficient operation would make building new reactors economically viable, something which even Swedish utility managers question. Besides providing electricity, the working group suggested that new reactors' waste heat could be used for district heating in areas near the plants. They added that the special nuclear capacity tax-which taxes nuclear power based on installed capacity and what units in theory can produce, rather than actual production- should be abolished, along with subsidies for wind power and biomass. "They skew competition, increase prices and create problems for energy producers and consumers," the group said.-Ariane Sains, Stockholm ===================================================== NUCLEAR NEWS FLASHES - Friday, March 18, 2005 INTERNATIONAL NEWS: --NEW REACTORS SHOULD BE BUILT AT THE FORSMARK AND RINGHALS SITES, members of the Swedish Liberal Party's Energy Working Group said today. Swedish law currently prohibits new units, but the group called for the law to be changed. The group said a new reactor could be economic, despite critics' claims that it would be too expensive to build. The group added that warm water from the new reactors should be used for district heating in the nearby cities. ========================================== NUCLEAR NEWS FLASHES - Thursday, March 17, 2005 INTERNATIONAL NEWS: --WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC BELGIUM HAS WON A CONTRACT TO UPRATE RINGHALS-3 by about 125 megawatts, company management said today. The value of the contract was not disclosed. Work will begin with this summer's maintenance outage and is scheduled to finish in July 2007. The uprate is one of a series planned for Swedish reactors. CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From cfrey at ssi-group.net Wed Jun 1 21:29:56 2005 From: cfrey at ssi-group.net (Charly Frey) Date: Wed Jun 1 21:38:54 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Shutdown of Barsebaeck 2 In-Reply-To: <01a801c566df$2fa43d00$bf572fd5@pc1> Message-ID: <200506011933.j51JXYm27225@anon.securenym.net> Nuclear power has been a charged political issue in Sweden. Swedish anti-nuclear campaigners have pressed for the plant to be shut down after Swedes voted in 1980 to stop using nuclear power and phase out all nuclear plants across the country over the coming decades. For the 348 employees of the station, the moment was still uneasy though the shutdown had long been determined, according to a report of the Swedish News Agency. "It's sad that the plant will not be allowed to run as long as it's profitable," said Hans Andersson, a shift manager at Barseback. In Sweden, where recent opinion polls show that a majority of people 78 % are in favor of keeping nuclear power, many have expressed concern that the shutdown will increase electricity prices. Charles From james at bovik.org Wed Jun 1 22:46:23 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Wed Jun 1 22:46:50 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIH research Message-ID: <429E1E9F.8040003@bovik.org> Stewart Farber wrote: > Regarding the long-running depleted U issue health risk thread, see the > recently published research summary about tungsten alloy munitions [a > suggested "benign alternative" to depleted U] and tungsten's unexpected > health threats.... Tungsten isn't pyrophoric, so it doesn't doesn't produce inhalable vapors and dust when used as uranium does, and thus isn't likely to be a wide-ranging hazard to soldiers and civilians as uranium is. Shrapnel wounds are a risk, but less so overall. Sincerely, James Salsman > The intro paragraph and link is given below. > > Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat > In response to concerns about the human and environmental health effects > of materials used to produce munitions, countries including the United > States have begun replacing some lead- and depleted uranium-based > munitions with alternatives made of a tungsten alloy. But this solution > may not be the "magic bullet" it was once envisioned to be. Researchers > from the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute and the Walter Reed > Army Institute of Research now report that weapons-grade tungsten alloy > produces aggressive metastatic tumors when surgically implanted into the > muscles of rats [EHP 113:729-734]. These findings raise new questions > about the possible consequences of tungsten exposure, and undermine the > view that tungsten alloy is a nontoxic alternative to depleted uranium and > lead. > > http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/113-6/ss.html#noma From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jun 1 22:47:11 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed Jun 1 22:47:21 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Notification: House Approves Planning for Interim Nuclear Waste Storage and Reprocessing Message-ID: <20050601204711.78492.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> This may be of interest. -----Original Message----- From: fyi@aip.org [mailto:fyi@aip.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:38 PM To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS) Subject: FYI #82: Nuclear Waste Storage and Reprocessing FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 82: June 1, 2005 House Approves Planning for Interim Nuclear Waste Storage and Reprocessing The transport and interim storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel at centralized sites and its eventual reprocessing was given a significant boost on May 24 during House consideration of the FY 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. Representatives rejected an amendment to reduce funding for the planning of these activities by a vote of almost 3-to-1. The House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee included extensive language regarding the disposition of spent nuclear fuel in House Report 109-086 that accompanied H.R. 2419. It is evident from the report and from floor debate that appropriators are dissatisfied with the status quo, and are using this funding bill to change the current policy of on-site spent fuel storage at nuclear plants while awaiting eventual disposal at a permanent repository. The report speaks of the current system as creating "a costly and unnecessary security risk." It predicts that initial operations at the Yucca Mountain repository might be delayed until the later half of the next decade, estimating that it costs the federal government $1 billion for every year of delay. The report states that the waste produced by 2010 would fully utilize Yucca Mountain's authorized capacity, necessitating a second repository. Appropriators outlined two steps that DOE should take in nonbinding report language. First, "the Committee believes the Department should move aggressively to take title to commercial spent fuel and consolidate such fuel in a smaller number of more secure, above-ground interim storage facilities located at existing DOE facilities." "[P]ossible alternative DOE sites include Hanford, Idaho, and Savannah River, all of which presently store government-owned spent fuel and high level waste and both of which already have extensive security measures in place." If these sites are found to be impracticable, DOE should investigate "other federally-owned sites, closed military bases, and non-federal fuel storage facilities." An implementation plan must be prepared by DOE within 120 days of the bill's enactment. The report contains extensive language on nuclear fuel reprocessing. "[T]he Committee directs the Department to prepare an integrated spent fuel recycling plan for implementation in fiscal year 2007, including selection of an advanced reprocessing technology and a competitive process to select one or more sites to develop integrated spent fuel recycling facilities (i.e., reprocessing, preparation of mixed oxide fuel, vitrification of high level waste products, and temporary process storage," the report declares. The report cites the PUREX reprocessing technology used in some European countries, and says, "There is no evidence that these reprocessing operations pose a significant proliferation risk." New nuclear reactors will also reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, the appropriators said. When the House considered the appropriations bill, Representatives Ed Markey (D-MA), Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Jay Inslee (D-WA) offered an amendment to transfer $15.5 million that is to be used for reprocessing and interim storage programs to energy efficiency programs. Markey told his colleagues that "this is a huge moment," and argued that reprocessing increases the opportunities for nuclear proliferation, is unsafe, is too expensive, and that the money would be better spent for other programs. Holt argued "Such a step must not be taken lightly, with no hearings, no authorizing legislation, no public input, no analysis of the implications for nuclear proliferation, not even an analysis of the cost to taxpayers." Appropriations subcommittee chairman David Hobson (R-OH) disagreed, saying "This country would be foolish to ignore the potential benefits of new technologies." The House voted against the amendment: 110 yes to 312 no (see http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll207.xml ) The bill now moves to the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, chaired by Pete Domenici (R-NM). Domenici has actively promoted nuclear energy, and it would not be surprising if he accepts Hobson's strategy on the storage and reprocessing of spent fuel. ############### Richard M. Jones Media and Government Relations Division The American Institute of Physics fyi@aip.org http://www.aip.org/gov (301) 209-3094 ##END########## +++++++++++++++++++ "Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought." Hugh Blair, 1783 -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From Jim.Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us Wed Jun 1 23:26:19 2005 From: Jim.Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us (Jim Hardeman) Date: Wed Jun 1 23:26:53 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] And so the NIMBY posturing begins ... Message-ID: <20050601T172619Z_1E3F00050000@dnr.state.ga.us> URL = http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/050601nuclear.shtml Jim Hardeman Jim_Hardeman@dnr.state.ga.us ============= Lawmakers deny 'crazy' nuclear waste dump rumor By JEN FISH , Portland Press Herald Writer Copyright ? 2005 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. Members of Maine's congressional delegation said Tuesday there is no chance that the state's military bases, if closed, could become nuclear waste repositories. That possibility began circulating several days ago after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a spending bill for energy and water development. Tucked in the bill is $15.5 million in funding for reprocessing nuclear waste from power plants and building an interim nuclear waste dump. The actual bill does not specify where the temporary dump would be, but a report attached to the bill suggests the Department of Energy investigate other federally owned sites, including closed military bases. Maine officials, who are in the midst of fighting against the closure of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and the realignment of the Brunswick Air Naval Station, called any future plans for the bases premature and added that the mere suggestion of a nuclear waste facility at either location was ridiculous at best. Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine, called the provision "crazy" and stated emphatically that there would be no such site in Maine. "This is an outrageous suggestion," Allen said Tuesday. "First of all, no bases have been closed yet. I think more likely than not, this is coming from members of Congress who haven't been able to solve the Yucca Mountain issue yet." The federal government has chosen Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a central, permanent nuclear waste repository. But various legal challenges and other problems have delayed the opening of Yucca Mountain until at least 2010. In the meantime, the government has stored its nuclear waste at 129 different interim sites scattered around the country. But a spokesman for the Department of Energy said Yucca Mountain remains the "right policy for America." "The department is currently reviewing the proposal," said Mike Waldron of the Department of Energy. "However, we remain committed to the opening of the Yucca Mountain repository in the Nevada desert where spent nuclear fuel can be permanently, safely stored away from population centers or other sensitive environmental areas." Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said the senator would never allow the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard to be converted into a repository for nuclear waste. "The possibility of having a nuclear waste repository there is reprehensible," Ferrier said. "Sen. Snowe would ensure that no such language is included in the Senate version of the bill." Ferrier went on to say that the shipyard - which is located on Seavey Island at the mouth of the Piscataqua River - would be "completely ill-suited to house nuclear waste." Her sentiments were echoed by representatives of Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who said the senator would vigorously oppose any efforts to put a nuclear waste facility in Maine. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jun 1 23:49:46 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed Jun 1 23:49:56 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Link to Atomic Heritage Foundation Message-ID: <20050601214946.39345.qmail@web54301.mail.yahoo.com> Try http://www.atomicheritage.org/home.htm +++++++++++++++++++ "Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought." Hugh Blair, 1783 -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jun 1 23:52:46 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed Jun 1 23:52:56 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] And so the NIMBY posturing begins ... In-Reply-To: <20050601T172619Z_1E3F00050000@dnr.state.ga.us> Message-ID: <20050601215247.85970.qmail@web54307.mail.yahoo.com> All based on rumors. --- Jim Hardeman wrote: > URL = > http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/050601nuclear.shtml > > Jim Hardeman > Jim_Hardeman@dnr.state.ga.us > > ============= > > Lawmakers deny 'crazy' nuclear waste dump rumor > > By JEN FISH , Portland Press Herald Writer > Copyright ? 2005 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. > > > Members of Maine's congressional delegation said > Tuesday there is no chance that the state's military > bases, if closed, could become nuclear waste > repositories. > That possibility began circulating several days ago > after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a > spending bill for energy and water development. > Tucked in the bill is $15.5 million in funding for > reprocessing nuclear waste from power plants and > building an interim nuclear waste dump. > The actual bill does not specify where the temporary > dump would be, but a report attached to the bill > suggests the Department of Energy investigate other > federally owned sites, including closed military > bases. . . . +++++++++++++++++++ "Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought." Hugh Blair, 1783 -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html From JGinniver at aol.com Thu Jun 2 01:10:37 2005 From: JGinniver at aol.com (JGinniver@aol.com) Date: Thu Jun 2 01:10:52 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sellafield "accident" Message-ID: <81.28d2f027.2fcf9a6d@aol.com> Franz, the first of the two links will take you to the latest press release from the British Nuclear Group. It was not easy to find as its on a new web site and there was no mention or link on the 'old' BNFL web site ( a lucky guess with the web site name, its under www.britishnucleargroup.com, turned it up after hearing several news reports where the head of the Sellafiled site stated categorically that this had been published on the company web site) _http://www.bnfl.com/library/upload/docs/004/2574_1.doc_ (http://www.bnfl.com/library/upload/docs/004/2574_1.doc) The second, although it is from an antinuclear group (I think its Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment - CORE) does appear (as far as I can tell) to contain some good straightforward facts. _http://www.corecumbria.co.uk/newsapp/pressreleases/pressmain.asp?StrNewsID=21 2_ (http://www.corecumbria.co.uk/newsapp/pressreleases/pressmain.asp?StrNewsID=212) As you can see from the first the company expects to have completed the removal the spilt liquor within the next 4 weeks. The other indicates that the plant could return to service quite quickly on the other accountancy? tank. However I think this is unlikely as I suspect that the UK Nuclear Regulator (the NII, part of the HSE) would require a detailed safety case to demonstrate that the second tank wouldn't fail in the same way as the first. Unfortunately although there is lots of reported comments from the UK Department of Trade and Industry the NII and the Nuclear Decomissioning Agency who now 'own' THORP, I can't find much information on the various web sites for these agencies (although it might just be that I can't find what's there). Hope this helps, Julian From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Thu Jun 2 01:56:24 2005 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Thu Jun 2 01:56:44 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: What is Depleted Uranium? In-Reply-To: <002b01c566fd$6678a9b0$d964bc46@yourae066c3a9b> Message-ID: <01ba01c56705$87c5c5f0$bf572fd5@pc1> Is there anybody at RADSAFE or NORM-TENORM who could explain to me the meaning of this message which was sent to me in response to a message to Norm Cohen at the RADSAFE list, critizising a "geoscientist" who tells the world about "What is Depleted Uranium?". Mr. Davis Mitchell has earlier sent several insulting messages about me to the RADSAFE-list. He obviously only uses both lists to advertise his "courses" on NORM. Whether such a person is suitable or certified to hold courses on NORM and radiation protection is a question open to anybody who reads his advertisments. Both RADSAFE and NORM-TENORM lists are not intended for advertising "money making activities". It is of course up to the list-owners to make a decision, but I personally would believe, that such a person should be banned from participation on the lists, since he only distributes "money making activities" and insults, far beyond any flaming. He does not make any other contribution to the lists. I would not be surprised, if his insults were related to intoxication by ethanol, I have no other explanation, somebody might have. Mr. Davis: If you regard forwarding your insults to me to other list participants as "undermining your money making activities" I would recommend that you do not send any insults to me, neither through the lists or to me personally. I recommend not to use the internet when you obviously are impaired by the use of certain chemicals. For your law suits you are threatening me with I wish you good luck. You can only loose the money, which you obviously do not earn with your "business". With my best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Mitchell Davis [mailto:radiation@cox.net] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 02. Juni 2005 00:58 > An: Franz Sch?nhofer > Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: What is Depleted Uranium? > > But Franz...you ARE an idiot!!!!...I've know this for years. And if you > try > to undermine my money making activities in the future, the law suit will > be > coming your way you piece of S++T!!!!! > > Mitchell W. Davis, RRPT > Health Physicist > Radiation Protection Consultants > 432-697-3523 > 432-349-4824 (Cell) > radiation@cox.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Franz Sch?nhofer" > To: "'Norm Cohen'" ; ; > ; > Cc: ; > ; > "'du-watch.yahoogroups.com'" > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 2:05 PM > Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: What is Depleted Uranium? > > > > Norman, > > > > Thank you for telling me, "What is Depleted Uranium". I have studied > > chemistry for 11 years before graduation as a PhD, my PhD work was in > > radiochemistry. I have spent decades in radioactivity environmental > > protection, I have been in the forefront of the Austrian Chernobyl > > Mitigation and also wrote the official report on the effect of the > > Chernobyl > > accident on Austria. Thank you that you forward to me "What is Depleted > > Uranium". Therefore I think it is somewhat challenging to receive from > you > > the interesting lecture of a geoscientist, who works around the clock (I > > personally worked during the heydays of the Chernobyl accident up to 20 > > hours, but not more), who is touring the world and living on its > obviously > > profitable anti-nuclear shows. You want some more examples? > > > > To put it straight: I have not studied chemistry, radiochemistry and > have > > not acquired a PHD in radiochemistry, worked for decades in this field > to > > be > > told by a geoscientist, whose only credential seems to be a > "whistleblower > > acitivty", that I am an idiot. Anybody else on RADSAFE to feel like > this? > > > > > > Nice, that you distribute what you receive, but I still think that you > > personally should be intellectually more able to distinguish between > such > > shit (sorry, I should have written s++t) and facts. > > > > > > Norman, in spite of our very harsh controversies in the past I still > > thought > > that you might be able to sort out s--t from serious messages. > > > > Best wishes to you and your family, > > > > Franz > > > > Franz Schoenhofer > > PhD, MR iR > > Habicherg. 31/7 > > A-1160 Vienna > > AUSTRIA > > phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- From james.g.barnes at att.net Thu Jun 2 02:05:13 2005 From: james.g.barnes at att.net (james.g.barnes@att.net) Date: Thu Jun 2 02:04:06 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU and other sublimed metals; nano-pathology Message-ID: <060220050005.17472.429E4D38000A5D070000444021612436469C0A029D0E0DD209D29C0A030E06@att.net> Dear all; Several months ago, I was forwarded a paper by Dr. Antonietta Gatti, who is a researcher in the subject of nano-pathology (the effect of sub-micron particles on health). In this particular work Dr. Gatti described a technique whereby extremely tiny particles of metals (and maybe other materials; I forget) can be located and identified at the cellular level. Because of the particles are extremely small, they don't behave as larger particles do, and can quite readily migrate throughout the body. In this application, Dr. Gatti was evaluating tumor tissues of individuals living in the Balkans (and I believe some Italian soldiers) who had purportedly been exposed to DU munitions. By examining the cancerous tissues, identifying nano-particles, and identifying the materials, she hoped to determine if uranium was a possible causative agent in these cancers. Interestingly, she didn't find any DU in these tissues at all, but she did find relatively large quantities of other metals (particularly lead). Her hypothesis is that the DU (and tungsten) ignite and burn at extremely high temperatures upon impact, which then vaporize the associated metallics in the round. She hypothesis that this extremely high temperature creates a large quantity of nanoparticles of various compositions. It appears that these are inhaled or ingested, and then migrate into the body tissues, with the subsequent potential for carcinogenesis. The fact that DU was not present in the cancerous tissue, but other metals were, is quite interesting. It doesn't prove the other metals are the cancer causing agents, but it does seem to de-emphasize DU as a culprit. The discussion at the below link appears very similar to what I read, although I think I had a slightly different version. http://avigolfe.ifrance.com/studies.htm [If you scroll down a bit, there are several photo-micrographs of deposited particles.] I'll add that I met Dr. Gatti late last year in New York. I was impressed with her work and the directions that it appears to lead. My sense was (and is) that she has approached this question in a scientific manner, and didn't appear to me to be biased in one direction or the other on the subject of DU. Jim Barnes, CHP james.g.barnes@att.net From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Thu Jun 2 02:12:11 2005 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Thu Jun 2 02:13:21 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIHresearch In-Reply-To: <429E1E9F.8040003@bovik.org> Message-ID: <01bb01c56707$c26e55d0$bf572fd5@pc1> This discussion is disgusting. Are you advocating to kill people with tungsten instead of depleted uranium? For the victims it will not make any difference. Such an inhuman point of view is unacceptable for me. If this is your opinion you should stop any messages about the risks of "background" radiation and rather campaign for the end of wars, where whatever kind of munition is used!!!! Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] Im > Auftrag von James Salsman > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 01. Juni 2005 22:46 > An: radsafe@radlab.nl > Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat - > NIHresearch > > Stewart Farber wrote: > > > Regarding the long-running depleted U issue health risk thread, see the > > recently published research summary about tungsten alloy munitions [a > > suggested "benign alternative" to depleted U] and tungsten's unexpected > > health threats.... > > Tungsten isn't pyrophoric, so it doesn't doesn't produce inhalable > vapors and dust when used as uranium does, and thus isn't likely to > be a wide-ranging hazard to soldiers and civilians as uranium is. > Shrapnel wounds are a risk, but less so overall. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > > > The intro paragraph and link is given below. > > > > Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat > > In response to concerns about the human and environmental health effects > > of materials used to produce munitions, countries including the United > > States have begun replacing some lead- and depleted uranium-based > > munitions with alternatives made of a tungsten alloy. But this solution > > may not be the "magic bullet" it was once envisioned to be. Researchers > > from the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute and the Walter > Reed > > Army Institute of Research now report that weapons-grade tungsten alloy > > produces aggressive metastatic tumors when surgically implanted into the > > muscles of rats [EHP 113:729-734]. These findings raise new questions > > about the possible consequences of tungsten exposure, and undermine the > > view that tungsten alloy is a nontoxic alternative to depleted uranium > and > > lead. > > > > http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/113-6/ss.html#noma > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca Thu Jun 2 02:47:43 2005 From: jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca (Jaro) Date: Thu Jun 2 02:47:59 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] question on LNT relating to SNF TRU versus U-ore NORMs Message-ID: Most of the knowledgeable folks on this list appear to agree that its highly inappropriate to apply LNT for risk estimation w.r.t. alpha-active radionuclides, such as the NORMs in U-ore, or TRUs in SNF, because of a well-defined threshold dose (examples being the Radium Dial Painters, and B. Cohen's domestic Radon effects study). Yet it seems that ICRP is doing just that, in its calculation of the Water Dilution Volumes (WDVs) required to meet regulatory safety limits. Specifically, in calculating the WDVs as a function of time following discharge of SNF from a reactor, and plotting that curve on a graph that also shows the horizontal reference line for U-ore, Eisenbud says ("Environmental Radioactivity," 4th Ed.) that the big difference in x-over points between NRC (<1000y) and ICRP (>10,000y) is due mainly to the Np237 change in absorption factors for transfer from the intestines to blood, which ICRP changed in its Part 2 of Publication 30 (1979 - 1988), and which US agencies later adopted. One might think that it should be a straight forward calculation to compare radiotoxicity vs time for SNF and U-ore. But that's obviously not the case, since the x-over point moves around by orders of magnitude, depending on the assumed absorption factors and, more importantly, whether one applies LNT to very low dose levels. Does anyone know what the WDV curve for SNF would look like if an appropriate, threshold-type dose-response relationship were applied in place of LNT, and whether-or-not ICRP will ever get around to correcting its recommendations & calculations ? Also, are there any other authorities that currently use the non-LNT calculation for deriving WDV curves ? (links please). What is the HPS's position on this ? ....RSH ? Thanks very much. Jaro Franta, P.Eng. Tel.: (514) 875-3444 Montr?al, Qu?bec frantaj@aecl.ca web master, CNS Qu?bec branch: http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/quebec/quebec.html <><><><><><><><><><><> -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.4.0 - Release Date: 6/1/2005 From james at bovik.org Thu Jun 2 03:04:36 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Thu Jun 2 03:04:52 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU and other sublimed metals; nano-pathology Message-ID: <429E5B24.7060505@bovik.org> I think the depleted uranium "nanoparticle" theories are wrong. About 18% of the DU munitions' particulate combustion products are less than 0.1 microns wide (J. Glissmeyer et al., "Prototype Firing Range Air Cleaning System," 18th D.o.E. Nuclear Airborne Waste Management and Air Cleaning Conference, August 1984), and such particles are absorbed into the bloodstream in a matter of a few to a few dozen minutes, even if they are "insoluble": http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/105/4/411 However, the nanoparticle researchers claim that uranium burns at 3000 deg. Celsius, which is needed to explain the aerial mobilization of other metals that Gatti and others suggest. In fact, uranium burns in air at about 1400 deg. Celsius, and doesn't exceed 2700 deg. even in pure oxygen (L. Baker et al., "The Ignition of Uranium," Journal of Nuclear Materials, vol. 20 (1966) pp. 22-38, at p. 30.) Nanoparticle theorists also ignore the chemical toxicity of uranium, repeating the quaint and wrong claim that uranium poses only a danger to the kidneys, and try to explain the deleterious effects solely in terms of radioactivity, which causes literally a million times less damage to DNA than the catalytic production of hydroxyl and other radicals -- http://www.bovik.org/du/Miller-DNA-damage.pdf -- which is the major mode of uranium chemical toxicity apart from the kidneys, affecting white blood cells, the reproductive system, the liver, and the brain. Sincerely, James Salsman Jim Barnes wrote: > Several months ago, I was forwarded a paper by Dr. > Antonietta Gatti, who is a researcher in the subject > of nano-pathology (the effect of sub-micron particles > on health). In this particular work Dr. Gatti > described a technique whereby extremely tiny particles > of metals (and maybe other materials; I forget) can be > located and identified at the cellular level. Because > the particles are extremely small, they don't behave > as larger particles do, and can quite readily migrate > throughout the body. In this application, Dr. Gatti > was evaluating tumor tissues of individuals living in > the Balkans (and I believe some Italian soldiers) who > had purportedly been exposed to DU munitions.... > > http://avigolfe.ifrance.com/studies.htm >.... From james at bovik.org Thu Jun 2 03:18:01 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Thu Jun 2 03:18:20 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIHresearch In-Reply-To: <01bb01c56707$c26e55d0$bf572fd5@pc1> References: <01bb01c56707$c26e55d0$bf572fd5@pc1> Message-ID: <429E5E49.8020102@bovik.org> Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > This discussion is disgusting. Are you advocating to kill people with > tungsten instead of depleted uranium? For the victims it will not make any > difference.... Fewer victims, including fewer congenital malformations in the children of the exposed, makes a big difference. Sincerely, James Salsman From farbersa at optonline.net Thu Jun 2 03:42:33 2005 From: farbersa at optonline.net (farbersa@optonline.net) Date: Thu Jun 2 03:43:11 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIH research Message-ID: <38353403832d15.3832d153835340@optonline.net> Hi all: Regarding the statement by James Salsman that tungsten alloy antitank rounds are not pyrophoric and therefore of little hazard to soldiers vs. DU, it should be noted that the protective armor on the Abrams tanks consist of multiple layers of depleted uranium between steel sheets. I assume tanks being attacked by US forces have similar depleted uranium armor. Anyone know if this is so?? So when a 102 mm antitank shell hits a tank armored with DU, I would think the resultant airborne particulate loading is roughly similar as far as DU for both DU rounds and tungsten alloy rounds [due to the effect of the round on the DU armor shields]. The exception is that tungsten rounds likely results in airborne tungsten dusts and shrapnel not seen with the DU round alone. Stewart Farber =============== ----- Original Message ----- From: James Salsman Date: Wednesday, June 1, 2005 4:46 pm Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIH research > Stewart Farber wrote: > > > Regarding the long-running depleted U issue health risk thread, > see the > > recently published research summary about tungsten alloy > munitions [a > > suggested "benign alternative" to depleted U] and tungsten's > unexpected > > health threats.... > > Tungsten isn't pyrophoric, so it doesn't doesn't produce inhalable > vapors and dust when used as uranium does, and thus isn't likely to > be a wide-ranging hazard to soldiers and civilians as uranium is. > Shrapnel wounds are a risk, but less so overall. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > > > The intro paragraph and link is given below. > > > > Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat > > In response to concerns about the human and environmental health > effects > > of materials used to produce munitions, countries including the > United > > States have begun replacing some lead- and depleted uranium- > based > > munitions with alternatives made of a tungsten alloy. But this > solution > > may not be the "magic bullet" it was once envisioned to be. > Researchers > > from the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute and the > Walter Reed > > Army Institute of Research now report that weapons-grade > tungsten alloy > > produces aggressive metastatic tumors when surgically implanted > into the > > muscles of rats [EHP 113:729-734]. These findings raise new > questions > > about the possible consequences of tungsten exposure, and > undermine the > > view that tungsten alloy is a nontoxic alternative to depleted > uranium and > > lead. > > > > http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/113-6/ss.html#noma > > > From jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca Thu Jun 2 04:10:39 2005 From: jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca (Jaro) Date: Thu Jun 2 04:10:46 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIHresearch In-Reply-To: <38353403832d15.3832d153835340@optonline.net> Message-ID: No. The layered armor on the Abrams tanks, for reasons of fabrication feasibility, results in the conspicuous angular appearance of the tank (especially the turret). The Soviet-era Iraqi tanks hit by DU rounds in Kuwait or Iraq itself have the old-style rounded steel armor. Anyway, the tank is incapacitated with just one, or a few hits -- whereas the great majority of DU rounds (typically from the gattlig gun of the A-10 "Warthog") end up in the ground, entombing themselves with very little damage, as you can see from the photos of DU rounds collected by IAEA teams in Bosnia, for example. They appear to have made a big deal out of this project, but I doubt very much that these small chunks of corroded DU metal are anywhere near as radioactive as uranium minerals collected by "rockhounds." Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl]On Behalf Of farbersa@optonline.net Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 9:43 PM To: James Salsman Cc: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIHresearch Hi all: Regarding the statement by James Salsman that tungsten alloy antitank rounds are not pyrophoric and therefore of little hazard to soldiers vs. DU, it should be noted that the protective armor on the Abrams tanks consist of multiple layers of depleted uranium between steel sheets. I assume tanks being attacked by US forces have similar depleted uranium armor. Anyone know if this is so?? So when a 102 mm antitank shell hits a tank armored with DU, I would think the resultant airborne particulate loading is roughly similar as far as DU for both DU rounds and tungsten alloy rounds [due to the effect of the round on the DU armor shields]. The exception is that tungsten rounds likely results in airborne tungsten dusts and shrapnel not seen with the DU round alone. Stewart Farber =============== -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.4.0 - Release Date: 6/1/2005 From james.g.barnes at att.net Thu Jun 2 04:51:51 2005 From: james.g.barnes at att.net (James G. Barnes) Date: Thu Jun 2 04:52:52 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU and other sublimed metals; nano-pathology References: <429E5B24.7060505@bovik.org> Message-ID: <001101c5671e$0b03b7c0$6401a8c0@jimathome> Good evening, I have a couple of questions and some observations. The reference you listed leads me to a discussion of Tc-99 labeling on carbon nano-particles, yet the discussion preceding it seems to discuss uranium behavior. Did you link to the intended reference, or are you drawing a parallel between Tc-99 plated on carbon and U. Also, is your central contention that it is the chemical behavior of DU that is producing the physical debilities, or do you consider that it is a radiological effect? The problem that I have with the "dissolved U" hypothesis is that it would seem to me you'd have to get quite a bit of U into the bloodstream and into the tissues to see the effect, and if you get that much dissolution going on, I believe you'd be able to detect it in urine or through other bioassay techniques. Yet, except for folks with shrapnel embedded in their bodies, controlled sampling programs are not detecting U above background levels using radiological techniques. Has anyone done chemical assay (e.g. blood or urine) for U, and if so, what have been the results? The discussion regarding the temperature of burning U aside, I still go back to the point that there are nano-particles of other metals in the diseased tissues, and no DU. My gut feeling is that you need a delivery system that a bit more sophisticated than simple dissolution in the lung in order to deliver the chemical dose close enough to a cell nucleus to do the damage you describe. According to the article, there's lead and mercury very close to cell nuclei, and both of those are capable of doing what U does on a chemical level; so we have a photo with two bad actors next to cell nuclei in a tumor mass. A third bad actor (U) is (perhaps surprisingly) not present. At a nano- level, that seems to me to be an injection site very close to a sensitive structure with not a lot of protective layers in between. Another point I probably shoud have mentioned earlier is that, in New York, Dr. Gatti presented a case of U being embedded in tissues, but the source was from a foundry or ceramics manufacturer that used natural U. So, she has seen U in tissues, but did not see it in this sample of diseased tissues from a Balkan war population. Jim Barnes ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Salsman" To: Cc: ; Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 6:04 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU and other sublimed metals; nano-pathology > I think the depleted uranium "nanoparticle" theories are wrong. > > About 18% of the DU munitions' particulate combustion products > are less than 0.1 microns wide (J. Glissmeyer et al., "Prototype > Firing Range Air Cleaning System," 18th D.o.E. Nuclear Airborne > Waste Management and Air Cleaning Conference, August 1984), and > such particles are absorbed into the bloodstream in a matter of > a few to a few dozen minutes, even if they are "insoluble": > http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/105/4/411 > > However, the nanoparticle researchers claim that uranium burns > at 3000 deg. Celsius, which is needed to explain the aerial > mobilization of other metals that Gatti and others suggest. > In fact, uranium burns in air at about 1400 deg. Celsius, and > doesn't exceed 2700 deg. even in pure oxygen (L. Baker et al., > "The Ignition of Uranium," Journal of Nuclear Materials, vol. > 20 (1966) pp. 22-38, at p. 30.) > > Nanoparticle theorists also ignore the chemical toxicity of > uranium, repeating the quaint and wrong claim that uranium > poses only a danger to the kidneys, and try to explain the > deleterious effects solely in terms of radioactivity, which > causes literally a million times less damage to DNA than > the catalytic production of hydroxyl and other radicals -- > http://www.bovik.org/du/Miller-DNA-damage.pdf > -- which is the major mode of uranium chemical toxicity apart > from the kidneys, affecting white blood cells, the reproductive > system, the liver, and the brain. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > > > Jim Barnes wrote: > > > Several months ago, I was forwarded a paper by Dr. > > Antonietta Gatti, who is a researcher in the subject > > of nano-pathology (the effect of sub-micron particles > > on health). In this particular work Dr. Gatti > > described a technique whereby extremely tiny particles > > of metals (and maybe other materials; I forget) can be > > located and identified at the cellular level. Because > > the particles are extremely small, they don't behave > > as larger particles do, and can quite readily migrate > > throughout the body. In this application, Dr. Gatti > > was evaluating tumor tissues of individuals living in > > the Balkans (and I believe some Italian soldiers) who > > had purportedly been exposed to DU munitions.... > > > > http://avigolfe.ifrance.com/studies.htm > >.... > > > From radiation at cox.net Thu Jun 2 05:42:01 2005 From: radiation at cox.net (Mitchell Davis) Date: Thu Jun 2 05:42:17 2005 Subject: [norm-tenorm] AW: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: What is Depleted Uranium? References: <01ba01c56705$87c5c5f0$bf572fd5@pc1> Message-ID: <006401c56725$097b65e0$d964bc46@yourae066c3a9b> Colleagues: I apologize for Franz's lapse in judgment. I sent a message to him to his personal email. It is he who chose to "broadcast" it to the associated lists. It is my commitment to keep any personal issues we have with each other private. If he chooses to broadcast them to the lists, it is his decision and his decision alone. Respectfully, Mitchell W. Davis, RRPT Health Physicist Radiation Protection Consultants 432-697-3523 432-349-4824 (Cell) radiation@cox.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franz Sch?nhofer" To: "'Mitchell Davis'" ; "RADSAFE" ; "NORM-TENORM (NORM-TENORM)" Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 6:56 PM Subject: [norm-tenorm] AW: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: What is Depleted Uranium? Is there anybody at RADSAFE or NORM-TENORM who could explain to me the meaning of this message which was sent to me in response to a message to Norm Cohen at the RADSAFE list, critizising a "geoscientist" who tells the world about "What is Depleted Uranium?". Mr. Davis Mitchell has earlier sent several insulting messages about me to the RADSAFE-list. He obviously only uses both lists to advertise his "courses" on NORM. Whether such a person is suitable or certified to hold courses on NORM and radiation protection is a question open to anybody who reads his advertisments. Both RADSAFE and NORM-TENORM lists are not intended for advertising "money making activities". It is of course up to the list-owners to make a decision, but I personally would believe, that such a person should be banned from participation on the lists, since he only distributes "money making activities" and insults, far beyond any flaming. He does not make any other contribution to the lists. I would not be surprised, if his insults were related to intoxication by ethanol, I have no other explanation, somebody might have. Mr. Davis: If you regard forwarding your insults to me to other list participants as "undermining your money making activities" I would recommend that you do not send any insults to me, neither through the lists or to me personally. I recommend not to use the internet when you obviously are impaired by the use of certain chemicals. For your law suits you are threatening me with I wish you good luck. You can only loose the money, which you obviously do not earn with your "business". With my best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Mitchell Davis [mailto:radiation@cox.net] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 02. Juni 2005 00:58 > An: Franz Sch?nhofer > Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: What is Depleted Uranium? > > But Franz...you ARE an idiot!!!!...I've know this for years. And if you > try > to undermine my money making activities in the future, the law suit will > be > coming your way you piece of S++T!!!!! > > Mitchell W. Davis, RRPT > Health Physicist > Radiation Protection Consultants > 432-697-3523 > 432-349-4824 (Cell) > radiation@cox.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Franz Sch?nhofer" > To: "'Norm Cohen'" ; ; > ; > Cc: ; > ; > "'du-watch.yahoogroups.com'" > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 2:05 PM > Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: What is Depleted Uranium? > > > > Norman, > > > > Thank you for telling me, "What is Depleted Uranium". I have studied > > chemistry for 11 years before graduation as a PhD, my PhD work was in > > radiochemistry. I have spent decades in radioactivity environmental > > protection, I have been in the forefront of the Austrian Chernobyl > > Mitigation and also wrote the official report on the effect of the > > Chernobyl > > accident on Austria. Thank you that you forward to me "What is Depleted > > Uranium". Therefore I think it is somewhat challenging to receive from > you > > the interesting lecture of a geoscientist, who works around the clock (I > > personally worked during the heydays of the Chernobyl accident up to 20 > > hours, but not more), who is touring the world and living on its > obviously > > profitable anti-nuclear shows. You want some more examples? > > > > To put it straight: I have not studied chemistry, radiochemistry and > have > > not acquired a PHD in radiochemistry, worked for decades in this field > to > > be > > told by a geoscientist, whose only credential seems to be a > "whistleblower > > acitivty", that I am an idiot. Anybody else on RADSAFE to feel like > this? > > > > > > Nice, that you distribute what you receive, but I still think that you > > personally should be intellectually more able to distinguish between > such > > shit (sorry, I should have written s++t) and facts. > > > > > > Norman, in spite of our very harsh controversies in the past I still > > thought > > that you might be able to sort out s--t from serious messages. > > > > Best wishes to you and your family, > > > > Franz > > > > Franz Schoenhofer > > PhD, MR iR > > Habicherg. 31/7 > > A-1160 Vienna > > AUSTRIA > > phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- Moderated by: Phil Egidi pegidi@tenorm.com http://www.tenorm.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/norm-tenorm/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: norm-tenorm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From M.Schouwenburg at TNW.TUDelft.NL Thu Jun 2 09:01:03 2005 From: M.Schouwenburg at TNW.TUDelft.NL (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Thu Jun 2 08:47:18 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: Radio-strontium in urine via cerenkov counting?] Message-ID: <429EAEAF.4060602@TNW.TUDelft.NL> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Radio-strontium in urine via cerenkov counting? Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 16:08:23 +1000 From: HARRISON, Jennifer Reply-To: liste de distribution pour les RADIOCHIMISTEs , "HARRISON, Jennifer" To: RADCH-L@IN2P3.FR Is it possible to use cerenkov counting as a semi-quantitative screening method for determining radio-strontium in urine? If so does anyone know of a published method I could use? Is it possible to simply concentrate a sample, dissolve in HCl and count with appropriate standards and a background or are there interfering species or any other pitfalls I need to be aware of? Regards, Jennifer Harrison Radioanalyst Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation PMB 1, Menai NSW 2234 T 02 9717 3480 F 02 9717 9270 E jennifer.harrison@ansto.gov.au www.ansto.gov.au ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marcel Schouwenburg - RadSafe moderator & List owner Head Training Centre Delft National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV) Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft Delft University of Technology Mekelweg 15 NL - 2629 JB DELFT The Netherlands Phone +31 (0)15 27 86575 Fax +31 (0)15 27 81717 email m.schouwenburg@tnw.tudelft.nl From frank.helk at nis-ingenieure.de Thu Jun 2 11:24:49 2005 From: frank.helk at nis-ingenieure.de (Frank Helk) Date: Thu Jun 2 11:25:01 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Gamma emissions of Co-60 ? In-Reply-To: <429D666C.21273.1002A0@localhost> Message-ID: Hi folks, I've read or heared somewhere, that the main gamma rays emitted from Co-60 (1173 keV and 1333 keV) thru the decay process are always emitted in opposite directions. I'm somewhat puzzled about that, and I can't find any source about that behaviour. Does anybody out there have a hint ("true", "false", literature source if true ?) Best regards Frank From BobCherry at cox.net Thu Jun 2 13:50:15 2005 From: BobCherry at cox.net (Bob Cherry) Date: Thu Jun 2 13:50:31 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Gamma emissions of Co-60 ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050602115019.SXAP18229.lakermmtao03.cox.net@compaq> Frank, Having done my thesis on directional correlation of gamma rays, I can assure that you have been misinformed. The gamma cascade in cobalt-60, as virtually all quantum events, occurs randomly. For a cascade from a single decay, you cannot predict the angle between the two. But for a large number of them, statistically you will see a pattern. This pattern has to do with the spins and parities of the nuclear levels in the excited nucleus that is decaying. If you know the spins and parities you can predict the pattern. Of course, usually you are looking at the pattern to get the spins and parities. Experimental uncertainties usually obfuscate the predicted spins and parities for most cascades, but it is a useful technique for some nuclides and allowed me to get my degree. Dr. Bernard Cohen is an expert in this area and he may have more to add. (Much more can be added to the above.) It turns out that the cobalt-60 cascade directional correlation is so well known, that it is used for calibration in directional correlation measurements. Bob -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Frank Helk Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:25 AM To: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Gamma emissions of Co-60 ? Hi folks, I've read or heard somewhere, that the main gamma rays emitted from Co-60 (1173 keV and 1333 keV) thru the decay process are always emitted in opposite directions. I'm somewhat puzzled about that, and I can't find any source about that behaviour. Does anybody out there have a hint ("true", "false", literature source if true ?) Best regards Frank _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From bcradsafers at hotmail.com Thu Jun 2 15:19:08 2005 From: bcradsafers at hotmail.com (Bjorn Cedervall) Date: Thu Jun 2 15:19:20 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Mobile phones riskier in the countryside? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Suggested reading: http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAB7F.htm My personal action only, Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers@hotmail.com From bcradsafers at hotmail.com Thu Jun 2 15:28:19 2005 From: bcradsafers at hotmail.com (Bjorn Cedervall) Date: Thu Jun 2 15:28:33 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Shutdown of Barsebaeck 2 In-Reply-To: <200506011933.j51JXYm27225@anon.securenym.net> Message-ID: Several sources told me there were more journalists there (a few days ago) than anti-nuclear activists. Regardless of wether this is correct or not - the anti-nuclear activists are becoming a rare species. The latter had a party with their fireworks and champagne - one of them said that he was happy that the nuclear power plant had been shut down for political reasons (representative of "Friends of Earth"). There was absolutely nothing wrong technically with this reactor. My personal comment only, Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers@hotmail.com From dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com Thu Jun 2 15:46:12 2005 From: dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com (dckosloff@firstenergycorp.com) Date: Thu Jun 2 15:46:54 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIH research Message-ID: If I had a tank and I was going to use it, I would assume that I was going to be attacked by whoever I was using it against. Thus I would want uranium armor, even if I had to pour uranium ore gravel between the steel. Uranium armor would be effective against whatever munitions the bad people might be using. But it might be too heavy and probably less effective than reactive armor. The good guys use DU because it is safe, they already have it and it is easier to use and more effective than uranium rocks or gravel. It is also less radioactive than an equivalent mass of natural (thus good) uranium. Don Kosloff Perry OH and Shippingport PA farbersa@optonlin e.net To: James Salsman Sent by: cc: radsafe@radlab.nl radsafe-bounces@r Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIH adlab.nl research 06/01/2005 09:42 PM SNIP I assume tanks being attacked by US forces have similar depleted uranium armor. Anyone know if this is so?? SNIP ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. From blc+ at pitt.edu Thu Jun 2 15:57:13 2005 From: blc+ at pitt.edu (Bernard Cohen) Date: Thu Jun 2 15:51:28 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk In-Reply-To: <001301c566c5$d89ceac0$318e7a89@Room30> References: <218.1eb1933.2fcea33d@aol.com> <00e501c566ae$29103d80$318e7a89@Room30> <429DDA83.6010303@pitt.edu> <001301c566c5$d89ceac0$318e7a89@Room30> Message-ID: <429F1039.5030804@pitt.edu> Dear Philippe: Many thanks for this info. If the variation of unattached fraction is so large, why do mines depend solely on WL? In any case, the variation in homes can be very much larger because of systems for dust removal in common use. Philippe Duport wrote: > Dear Dr. Cohen, > > More recent data on the unattached fraction in U mines: > Keng Wu-Tu, Isabel M. Fisenne and Adam R. Hutter. SHORT - AND > LONG-LIVED RADIONUCLIDE PARTICLE SIZE > MEASUREMENTS IN A URANIUM MINE. DOE-EML Report EML-588, April 1997 > > > > > > Unattached fraction : 0.3 % to 23.9 % in a Canadian uranium mines in 1995 > > > > Wu-Tu et al data confirm, independently, those obtained in French U > mines some 30 years ago. > > Dr. Cohen, you may have a point, the unattached fraction may be quite > variable and the raw WL value may not be the right parameter to > characterize the risk of lung cancer due to radon decay products, and > upon which to base lung dose calculations. > > > > Wu-Tu et al found also a sizable amount of ultrafine long-lived > aerosols (elements of the U 238-235 decay series other than > short-lived Rn decay products) between 10 and 100 nm (mode at 30 nm). > These were never taken into account in lung dosimetry. > > > > P Duport > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernard Cohen" > To: "Philippe Duport" > Cc: ; ; "Bernard L Cohen" > > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:55 AM > Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk > > >> >> >> Philippe Duport wrote: >> >>> Please see "Determination de la fraction libre d'activit? existant >>> sous forme de RaA non attach? dans l'atmosph?re d'une mine >>> d'uranium" by A. Chapuis, A. Lopez, J. Fontan, Health Physics Vol. >>> 25, pp. 59-65 (1973). At that time, Health Physics accepted papers >>> in French! The fact that some papers were published in French or in >>> languages other than English does not imply that the research has >>> not been done and the information does not exist. >>> >>> Chapuis et al report unattached fraction values from 1 or 2% close >>> to an active stope, up to 15 to 20% without, or far enough from, >>> active mining operations. Miners do not spend all their time in >>> close proximity to active mining operations. >>> >>> I measured unattached fraction values of the order of 30% in an >>> isolated, inactive part of an underground uranium mine with forced >>> ventilation (P. Duport, G. Madelaine, A. Renoux. Mesure de la >>> fraction libre dans l'air d'une mine d'uranium laboratoire, >>> Chemosphere 4(5):283-288, 1975) - sorry, another paper in French. >>> >>> The unattached fraction is of course very sensitive to aerosol >>> concentration, but it is a serious mistake to assume that it is >>> always negligible in mines. >>> >>> Philippe Duport >> >> >> ----My apologies for aaying unattached fractions were close to >> zero in mines. The point is that they are presumably small enough and >> have little enough variability that they do not affect the radiation >> dose. If they did, it would not make sense to use WL as an index of >> radiation in mines >> > From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jun 2 15:57:23 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu Jun 2 15:57:33 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU and other sublimed metals; nano-pathology In-Reply-To: <060220050005.17472.429E4D38000A5D070000444021612436469C0A029D0E0DD209D29C0A030E06@att.net> Message-ID: <20050602135723.86956.qmail@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Nanopathology. Like molecular imaging, we used to call it chemistry. --- james.g.barnes@att.net wrote: > Dear all; > > Several months ago, I was forwarded a paper by Dr. > Antonietta Gatti, who is a researcher in the subject > of nano-pathology (the effect of sub-micron > particles on health). In this particular work Dr. > Gatti described a technique whereby extremely tiny > particles of metals (and maybe other materials; I > forget) can be located and identified at the > cellular level. Because of the particles are > extremely small, they don't behave as larger > particles do, and can quite readily migrate > throughout the body. In this application, Dr. Gatti > was evaluating tumor tissues of individuals living > in the Balkans (and I believe some Italian soldiers) > who had purportedly been exposed to DU munitions. > By examining the cancerous tissues, identifying > nano-particles, and identifying the materials, she > hoped to determine if uranium was a possible > causative agent in these cancers. > > Interestingly, she didn't find any DU in these > tissues at all, but she did find relatively large > quantities of other metals (particularly lead). Her > hypothesis is that the DU (and tungsten) ignite and > burn at extremely high temperatures upon impact, > which then vaporize the associated metallics in the > round. She hypothesis that this extremely high > temperature creates a large quantity of > nanoparticles of various compositions. It appears > that these are inhaled or ingested, and then migrate > into the body tissues, with the subsequent potential > for carcinogenesis. The fact that DU was not > present in the cancerous tissue, but other metals > were, is quite interesting. It doesn't prove the > other metals are the cancer causing agents, but it > does seem to de-emphasize DU as a culprit. > > The discussion at the below link appears very > similar to what I read, although I think I had a > slightly different version. > > http://avigolfe.ifrance.com/studies.htm > > [If you scroll down a bit, there are several > photo-micrographs of deposited particles.] > > I'll add that I met Dr. Gatti late last year in New > York. I was impressed with her work and the > directions that it appears to lead. My sense was > (and is) that she has approached this question in a > scientific manner, and didn't appear to me to be > biased in one direction or the other on the subject > of DU. > > Jim Barnes, CHP > james.g.barnes@att.net > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing > list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have > read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be > found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe > and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/ From blc+ at pitt.edu Thu Jun 2 16:15:48 2005 From: blc+ at pitt.edu (Bernard Cohen) Date: Thu Jun 2 16:09:36 2005 Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk In-Reply-To: <018301c566cd$88a1c880$bf572fd5@pc1> References: <018301c566cd$88a1c880$bf572fd5@pc1> Message-ID: <429F1494.50306@pitt.edu> Are you implying that it is better to measure WL (radon daughters) than to measure radon levels for estimating radiation doses in homes? If so, I am quite certain you are wrong. Note that all regulations and advisories pertaining to homes are based on radon levels. Note that it is easy and cheap to reduce the WL in a home by a factor of 3-10, but there are no widespread recommendations for doing that; instead, the recommendations are to spend over $1000 to reduce the radon level. Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: >Thank you for your response. My critizism was not so much intended to you >personally, but of course you are a well established scientist on radon and >lung cancer and therefore you will be in the forefront of any critizism! > >Having worked such a long time with radon I know of course the health >effects of "radon". I know as well about the problems associated with UF. I >am very aware of the problem in mines, the WL approach etc. etc. as you >mention in your post. > >I know very well about the problems of measuring UF and radon daughters >concentrations. I agree with your comments that it is much easier to measure >radon-222 concentrations. I have done it tens of thousand time within the >Austrian Radon Project, using the charcoal/LSC method, which also you used >some time ago. But the Austrian Radon Project was not (!!!) intended to find >a relation between radon-222 concentration and lung cancer. We just wanted >to know the radon concentration distribution and an appropriate risk. (What >one could (if so desired) derive from the data was, that radon concentration >and lung cancer were negatively correlated in some areas, but since >radon-222 is not linearily related to lung cancer this is a no-no result.) > >I insist that relation between Rn-222 concentrations and lung cancer can of >course be made (as well as relations between arrival of storks and birth >frequency), but to claim extremely small effects on lung cancer taking into >account the unknown relation between Rn-222 and progeny is simply >unacceptable. > >I think that all those highly sophisticated research by the "radon >celebrities" who only take Rn-222 concentrations into account should at >least be reconsidered and revised. > >I see that Bill Field is doing a reasonable job to measure daughter >products. I will observe his work in the future. > >Best regards, > >Franz > > >Franz Schoenhofer >PhD, MR iR >Habicherg. 31/7 >A-1160 Vienna >AUSTRIA >phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > > > > >>-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>Von: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] Im >>Auftrag von Bernard Cohen >>Gesendet: Dienstag, 31. Mai 2005 22:20 >>An: Franz Sch?nhofer >>Cc: 'Otto G. Raabe'; 'Bernard Cohen'; radsafe@radlab.nl >>Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk >> >> >> >>Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: >> >> >> >>>"Why do you ignore my response.....", just a copied phrase from your >>> >>> >>mail. >> >> >>>Do you believe that it is below your scientific level to answer my >>> >>> >>clearly >> >> >>>formulated criticism? Why do you still mention average county radon >>> >>> >>levels >> >> >>>in this post? >>> >>> >>> >> ---Your message was not addressed to me specifically and was >>not about my work specifically, so I did not feel obligated to respond, >>butI will respond here. >> The health effects of radon depend basically on three things, radon >>gas concentration -r, concentration of radon daughters --WL (working >>level), and unattached fraction -UF (fraction of radon daughters not >>attached to a dust particle - this is important because these have a >>much greater probability of sticking to the bronchial surfaces). In >>mines, there is so much dust that one can assume UF = 0, so measuring WL >>gives the health effects. In homes, this is not so. As an example, one >>can drastically reduce the WL by removing the dust (for example, with an >>electrostatic precipitator), but the newly formed radon daughters have >>no dust to attach to, so UF = 1.0, and the danger is not reduced. >>Roughly, health effects, HE = k x WL x UF.where k is a constant >> In general, there is a strong negative correlation between UF and >>the ratio of WL/r (equilibrium factor), or .UF x WL/r = K, another >>constant. Combining these two equations, HE = k x K x r, or health >>effects are proportional to r, HE = k' r. Detailed studies have >>confirmed this result, and shown that it is much more accurate than >>assuming HE = k'' x WL. (k' and k'' are new constants) >> Ideally, one should measure WL and UF, but that is very difficult >>and is essentially never done. Moreover, it is much easier to measure r >>than to measure WL. That is why everyone measures r. . >> In my studies involving hundreds of thousands of measurements of r, >>it seems reasonable to assume that there is no strong systematic >>variation in the ratio of r to health effects. If you have reason to >>think that there might be such a systematic variation, please let me know. >> >> >> >>>I insist that it is more than unscientific to claim minor statistical >>>significance, when the data might be wrong by tens of percents. >>> >>>Sorry to say, that I have once admired your way of proofing that others >>> >>> >>are >> >> >>>incorrect, by using their data and showing that they are in disagreement >>>with the claimed results. I have used this tactic very often myself. >>> >>>In this case I believe that you are working with data (radon >>>concentrations), which are not directly related to your "results" - lung >>>cancer. >>> >>>Franz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl >> >>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood >>the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: >>http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html >> >>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings >>visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ >> >> > > > > From pduport at uottawa.ca Thu Jun 2 16:33:12 2005 From: pduport at uottawa.ca (Philippe Duport) Date: Thu Jun 2 16:34:00 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk References: <218.1eb1933.2fcea33d@aol.com> <00e501c566ae$29103d80$318e7a89@Room30> <429DDA83.6010303@pitt.edu> <001301c566c5$d89ceac0$318e7a89@Room30> <429F1039.5030804@pitt.edu> Message-ID: <014e01c56780$01c994b0$318e7a89@Room30> Dear Dr. Cohen, Why do mines depend solely on WL? This is a typical case of searching under the lamp post! Measuring Rn gas concentration or WL is much easier than measuring something (what, how?) truly representative of lung dose, IF lung dose is itself a measure of lung cancer risk at very low dose rates of alpha radiation. I wish some day a group is assembled to put all the cards on the table and to look, without prejudice and a priories, at the logical implications of ALL the assumptions used so far in the estimation of Rn risk at today's indoor and workplace Rn concentration. Philippe Duport ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernard Cohen" To: "Philippe Duport" Cc: "Bernard Cohen" ; ; Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 9:57 AM Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk > Dear Philippe: > Many thanks for this info. If the variation of unattached fraction is so > large, why do mines depend solely on WL? In any case, the variation in > homes can be very much larger because of systems for dust removal in > common use. > > Philippe Duport wrote: > >> Dear Dr. Cohen, >> >> More recent data on the unattached fraction in U mines: >> Keng Wu-Tu, Isabel M. Fisenne and Adam R. Hutter. SHORT - AND LONG-LIVED >> RADIONUCLIDE PARTICLE SIZE >> MEASUREMENTS IN A URANIUM MINE. DOE-EML Report EML-588, April 1997 >> >> >> >> >> >> Unattached fraction : 0.3 % to 23.9 % in a Canadian uranium mines in 1995 >> >> >> >> Wu-Tu et al data confirm, independently, those obtained in French U mines >> some 30 years ago. >> >> Dr. Cohen, you may have a point, the unattached fraction may be quite >> variable and the raw WL value may not be the right parameter to >> characterize the risk of lung cancer due to radon decay products, and >> upon which to base lung dose calculations. >> >> >> >> Wu-Tu et al found also a sizable amount of ultrafine long-lived aerosols >> (elements of the U 238-235 decay series other than short-lived Rn decay >> products) between 10 and 100 nm (mode at 30 nm). These were never taken >> into account in lung dosimetry. >> >> >> >> P Duport >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernard Cohen" >> To: "Philippe Duport" >> Cc: ; ; "Bernard L Cohen" >> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:55 AM >> Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk >> >> >>> >>> >>> Philippe Duport wrote: >>> >>>> Please see "Determination de la fraction libre d'activit? existant sous >>>> forme de RaA non attach? dans l'atmosph?re d'une mine d'uranium" by A. >>>> Chapuis, A. Lopez, J. Fontan, Health Physics Vol. 25, pp. 59-65 (1973). >>>> At that time, Health Physics accepted papers in French! The fact that >>>> some papers were published in French or in languages other than English >>>> does not imply that the research has not been done and the information >>>> does not exist. >>>> >>>> Chapuis et al report unattached fraction values from 1 or 2% close to >>>> an active stope, up to 15 to 20% without, or far enough from, active >>>> mining operations. Miners do not spend all their time in close >>>> proximity to active mining operations. >>>> >>>> I measured unattached fraction values of the order of 30% in an >>>> isolated, inactive part of an underground uranium mine with forced >>>> ventilation (P. Duport, G. Madelaine, A. Renoux. Mesure de la fraction >>>> libre dans l'air d'une mine d'uranium laboratoire, Chemosphere >>>> 4(5):283-288, 1975) - sorry, another paper in French. >>>> >>>> The unattached fraction is of course very sensitive to aerosol >>>> concentration, but it is a serious mistake to assume that it is always >>>> negligible in mines. >>>> >>>> Philippe Duport >>> >>> >>> ----My apologies for aaying unattached fractions were close to >>> zero in mines. The point is that they are presumably small enough and >>> have little enough variability that they do not affect the radiation >>> dose. If they did, it would not make sense to use WL as an index of >>> radiation in mines >>> >> From don.mercado at lmco.com Thu Jun 2 19:35:10 2005 From: don.mercado at lmco.com (Mercado, Don) Date: Thu Jun 2 19:37:08 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIH research Message-ID: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE463970@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> I still haven't seen any evidence that a DU round hit causes "inhalable vapors and dust" of any concentration to warrant a concern. James, what is the dose from the claimed inhaled DU? -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 1:46 PM To: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIH research Stewart Farber wrote: > Regarding the long-running depleted U issue health risk thread, see > the > recently published research summary about tungsten alloy munitions [a > suggested "benign alternative" to depleted U] and tungsten's unexpected > health threats.... Tungsten isn't pyrophoric, so it doesn't doesn't produce inhalable vapors and dust when used as uranium does, and thus isn't likely to be a wide-ranging hazard to soldiers and civilians as uranium is. Shrapnel wounds are a risk, but less so overall. Sincerely, James Salsman > The intro paragraph and link is given below. > > Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat > In response to concerns about the human and environmental health > effects > of materials used to produce munitions, countries including the United > States have begun replacing some lead- and depleted uranium-based > munitions with alternatives made of a tungsten alloy. But this solution > may not be the "magic bullet" it was once envisioned to be. Researchers > from the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute and the Walter Reed > Army Institute of Research now report that weapons-grade tungsten alloy > produces aggressive metastatic tumors when surgically implanted into the > muscles of rats [EHP 113:729-734]. These findings raise new questions > about the possible consequences of tungsten exposure, and undermine the > view that tungsten alloy is a nontoxic alternative to depleted uranium and > lead. > > http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/113-6/ss.html#noma _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From james at bovik.org Thu Jun 2 20:32:57 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Thu Jun 2 20:33:19 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU and other sublimed metals; nano-pathology In-Reply-To: <001101c5671e$0b03b7c0$6401a8c0@jimathome> References: <429E5B24.7060505@bovik.org> <001101c5671e$0b03b7c0$6401a8c0@jimathome> Message-ID: <429F50D9.2090503@bovik.org> Jim Barnes wrote: > are you drawing a parallel between Tc-99 plated on carbon and U? Yes, since the latter is considered "insoluble" in lung fluid, the point is that any substance less than 0.1 micron in diameter will make it into the blood stream if inhaled. > Also, is your central contention that it is the chemical behavior of > DU that is producing the physical debilities, or do you consider that > it is a radiological effect? I think the chemical toxicity of absorbed uranium is several orders of magnitude worse than the radiological hazard it presents. The important fact that I think is overlooked is that uranium does not accumulate in the kidneys, where a sufficient one-time dose can cause kidney failure, but continuous doses half of that size, each given a week apart, will only result in minor structural changes in the kidneys and not kidney failure. However, uranium does accumulate in, for example, the testes, where it affects the chromosomes in spermatogonia, with increasing damage over time. There are plenty of other tissues where it accumulates and causes problems, too. >... The problem that I have with the "dissolved U" > hypothesis is that it would seem to me you'd have to get quite a bit of U > into the bloodstream and into the tissues to see the effect, and if you get > that much dissolution going on, I believe you'd be able to detect it in > urine or through other bioassay techniques. Yet, except for folks with > shrapnel embedded in their bodies, controlled sampling programs are not > detecting U above background levels using radiological techniques. Has > anyone done chemical assay (e.g. blood or urine) for U, and if so, what have > been the results? Sure; a good example is in "Estimate of the time zero lung burden of depleted uranium in Persian Gulf War veterans by the 24-hour urinary excretion and exponential decay analysis," Military Medicine, vol. 168, no. 8 (2003), pp. 600-605. They estimated that the initial inhalation exposure was only about 0.34 mg in five symptomatic ("Gulf War Illness") patients with urine isotope ratios indicating D.U. exposure: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12943033 However, I think they may have used a misleading lung clearance rate. > The discussion regarding the temperature of burning U aside, I still go back > to the point that there are nano-particles of other metals in the diseased > tissues, and no DU. My gut feeling is that you need a delivery system that > a bit more sophisticated than simple dissolution in the lung in order to > deliver the chemical dose close enough to a cell nucleus to do the damage > you describe. According to the article, there's lead and mercury very close > to cell nuclei, and both of those are capable of doing what U does on a > chemical level; so we have a photo with two bad actors next to cell nuclei > in a tumor mass. A third bad actor (U) is (perhaps surprisingly) not > present. Not present in particulate form like the other metals; bioavailable uranium is almost never metallic, but the hexavalent uranyl (UO2++) ion, which participates in cation exchange with sodium and potassium in structural hydroxyl groups after conversion to uranyl hydroxide hydrate (Stuart et al., "Solubility and Hemolytic Activity of Uranium Trioxide," Environmental Research, vol. 18 (1979), pp. 385-396.) Embedded DU shrapnel is amazingly harmless, and most of the veterans with symptoms have only inhalational exposure, without any shrapnel. Metallic U is apparently not a serious hazard, perhaps because it is dissolved and transported away for excretion by larger molecules before it oxidizes to the bioavailable U(VI) form. > Another point I probably shoud have mentioned earlier is that, in New York, > Dr. Gatti presented a case of U being embedded in tissues, but the source > was from a foundry or ceramics manufacturer that used natural U. So, she > has seen U in tissues, but did not see it in this sample of diseased tissues > from a Balkan war population. Chromosome damage is occurring at about the same rate in Balkan and Gulf War I veterans: http://www.bovik.org/du/chromosome-abberations.pdf Sincerely, James Salsman From james at bovik.org Thu Jun 2 20:54:56 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Thu Jun 2 20:55:13 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIH research In-Reply-To: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE463970@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> References: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE463970@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: <429F5600.8080808@bovik.org> Don Mercado wrote: > I still haven't seen any evidence that a DU round hit causes "inhalable > vapors and dust" of any concentration to warrant a concern. James, what > is the dose from the claimed inhaled DU? In the _Military Medicine_, vol. 168, no. 8 (2003), pp. 600-605 article I cited a few minutes ago, the authors estimate an inhalation exposure of only about 0.34 mg in five symptomatic ("Gulf War Illness") patients, but I think they assumed a slower lung solubility than is really the case. Each 30 mm round of DU ordnance suspends on average about 60 grams of elemental uranium in the form of various oxides in the air. Of the dust particles, about 18% are small enough to be absorbed right away. Some amount of gaseous UO3 vapor is also produced, but nobody knows exactly how much, yet: more will come from a round burning on a concave surface than a convex surface, for reasons of heat transfer. 30 mm DU ordnance is typically fired at about 20 rounds per second, from an Apache helicopter's gun, for instance. I have calculated that just two seconds of such firing can result in plumes which might result in multi-milligram inhalation exposures a kilometer away in a 6 km/h wind. Franz Sch?nhofer thinks my calculations were wrong somehow, but refuses to say why. Sincerely, James Salsman From scisfty at csulb.edu Thu Jun 2 22:21:34 2005 From: scisfty at csulb.edu (Jeffrey Mellon) Date: Thu Jun 2 22:21:40 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU and other sublimed metals; nano-pathology References: <429E5B24.7060505@bovik.org> <001101c5671e$0b03b7c0$6401a8c0@jimathome> Message-ID: <006101c567b0$abbdb9d0$5f7a8b86@cnsm.ad.csulb.edu> So DU has an "absence of significant alpha particle decay" and "it is not considered to be a significant radiological hazard"?? These quotes are from Dr. Alexandra C. Miller's 2001 article in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry -- a link to same provided earlier in this exchange. The alphas from DU sure make MY Eberline alpha survey meter go bananas - rather like natural U. Just my 2 cents. Jeff in Long Beach, CA From james at bovik.org Thu Jun 2 22:33:08 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Thu Jun 2 22:33:24 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU and other sublimed metals; nano-pathology In-Reply-To: <006101c567b0$abbdb9d0$5f7a8b86@cnsm.ad.csulb.edu> References: <429E5B24.7060505@bovik.org> <001101c5671e$0b03b7c0$6401a8c0@jimathome> <006101c567b0$abbdb9d0$5f7a8b86@cnsm.ad.csulb.edu> Message-ID: <429F6D04.40204@bovik.org> It's not the DU which has the absence of alpha particles, but rather the damage to DNA from DU in vitro is a million times more likely to have occurred from catalytic production of hydroxyl and other radicals than from alpha radiation. Sincerely, James Salsman Jeff Mellon wrote: > So DU has an "absence of significant alpha particle decay" and "it is > not considered to be a significant radiological hazard"?? These quotes > are from Dr. Alexandra C. Miller's 2001 article in the /Journal of > Inorganic Biochemistry --/ a link to same provided earlier in this exchange. > > The alphas from DU sure make MY Eberline alpha survey meter go bananas - > rather like natural U. From don.mercado at lmco.com Thu Jun 2 23:05:17 2005 From: don.mercado at lmco.com (Mercado, Don) Date: Thu Jun 2 23:22:35 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIH research Message-ID: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE81F589@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> James Salsman wrote: "In the _Military Medicine_, vol. 168, no. 8 (2003), pp. 600-605 article I cited a few minutes ago, the authors estimate an inhalation exposure of only about 0.34 mg in five symptomatic ("Gulf War Illness") patients, but I think they assumed a slower lung solubility than is really the case." 5 patients with GWI symptoms sure doesn't seem like a good study pointing to DU causation of anything. "Each 30 mm round of DU ordnance suspends on average about 60 grams of elemental uranium in the form of various oxides in the air." *Each* round, or those which hit something and burn? Every round that fires doesn't burn, some that do burn are buried in the ground and produce no "inhalable particles", etc. "Of the dust particles, about 18% are small enough to be absorbed right away. Some amount of gaseous UO3 vapor is also produced, but nobody knows exactly how much, yet: more will come from a round burning on a concave surface than a convex surface, for reasons of heat transfer. 30 mm DU ordnance is typically fired at about 20 rounds per second, from an Apache helicopter's gun, for instance. I have calculated that just two seconds of such firing can result in plumes which might result in multi-milligram inhalation exposures a kilometer away in a 6 km/h wind. Franz Sch?nhofer thinks my calculations were wrong somehow, but refuses to say why." I think Franz is right. There's so many holes in this argument, including "nobody knows exactly how much", it isn't funny. It isn't how much that is produced that's the problem, its how much dose is absorbed by a human that's important. And you STILL haven't answered the question of what dose the inhaled particles deliver. "Multi-milligram quantities a km away" mean nothing if there's no concentration figure. Take what multi-milligram quantity and spread it over 20 cubic km and you have nothing. From dougm at nucmed.crg.cs.nsw.gov.au Fri Jun 3 05:44:11 2005 From: dougm at nucmed.crg.cs.nsw.gov.au ( CRGH Radiation Safety, Douglas Mackey) Date: Fri Jun 3 05:53:08 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: DU and other sublimed metals; nano-pathology In-Reply-To: <200506021336.j52DXR5d022679@radlab.nl> References: <200506021336.j52DXR5d022679@radlab.nl> Message-ID: <429FD20B.2070502@nucmed.crg.cs.nsw.gov.au> Dear Radsafe As a long time "lurker" on theRadsafe list I should like to thank James Salsman for bringing this flawed but still very interesting article to my attention. http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/105/4/411 My interest is in the observation of at least some level of transfer into the blood of insoluble particulates. I would however caution readers about ascribing any particular size to these particles without positive identification first. In "The observation of Fullerenes in a Technegas Lung ventilation unit - Mackey et.al. Nuclear Medicine Communications (1994) 15, 430-434)" we show, using negative ion laser desorption fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectroscopy, that the Technegas generator creates carbon particles ranging from approximately 0.7 nm for C60 Fullerenes (of mass 720) up to Fullerenes with a mass to charge ratio of ~ 3000. It was not possible -even using this powerful instrument- to positively identify Technetiums association with carbon in Technegas. Theoretical modelling work indicated the favourability of the creation of even simpler compounds of Carbon and Technetium. (Density Functional Investigation of Various states of the Molecules TcC, TcC2, ScC2 and YC2 : *P*.*Jackson*, *GE*.*Gadd*, *DW*.*Mackey*, H.van der Wall, and GD.Willett, J. Phys. Chem. A 102, 8941 (1998)) Having experienced the difficulty in identifying nm sized radio-labelled carbon particles, it doesn't surprise me that Nemmar et. al. state "However, we were unable to detect the carbon particles in ultrathin^ sections of blood by electron microscopy" Regardless of other flaws in their technique which I mention below, on the basis of their chromatography results I have to agree with the conclusion that some ultrafine insoluble carbon based particulates can rapidly diffuse into the systemic circulation from the lung. The question is - How fine are these ultrafine particles? How permeable is the lung membrane to TcC at mass 111 , in comparison to a hypothetical C60-99mTc metallofullerene at mass 819, or the pollutants mentioned by Nemmar et.al.- or the compounds under discussion on Radsafe? James should also read Dr Burch's response in the same journal in November 2002: http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/106/20/e141 where he points out that the Technegas generator used in this series of experiments was operating in an clinically unacceptable manner. - i.e. producing a great amount of free pertechnetate. As Dr Burch states, "There should be no visible thyroid^ on a study done using a properly functioning machine" I have confirmed this over many years while employing his invention for diagnosis at a number of institutions. As soon as thyroid begins to appear in clinical images from Technegas, we know that it is time to remove the built up deposit of salt crystals in the generator chamber. These crystals have a vast surface area on which oxygen may be adsorbed when the chamber is opened to air during generator loading. During the generation of Technegas, a crucible is heated to over 2000 C in the chamber under an inert gas atmosphere. The resultant radient energy in the chamber can cause the release of the adsorbed oxygen resulting in contamination of the inert gas atmosphere. This prevents the proper formation of Technegas by oxidation of the carbon nano particles. The end result is the formation of free Pertechnetate (99mTcO4-) which is avidly taken up by the thyroid and rapidly washes out from the lungs into the blood. From GELSG at aol.com Fri Jun 3 07:39:47 2005 From: GELSG at aol.com (GELSG@aol.com) Date: Fri Jun 3 07:39:59 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk Message-ID: <1e9.3d404186.2fd14723@aol.com> Dr. Cohen: As I mentioned before, I have not seen much beyond anecdotal evidence for average unattached fraction values for the average home. My observations in my own home, both with and without active electrostatic air cleaning, is that there is always some dust. An electrostatic precipitator certainly helps to remove dust, but there are many different ways to "resupply" dust to the home environment, some of which I mentioned previously. If it were shown that home electrostatic precipitators did not drastically reduce the average unattached fraction (it might not take that many dust particles per cubic meter to provide sites for attachment), would you then agree that use of such a device in the average home situation might substantially reduce lung doses from radon daughters? Gerald Gels In a message dated 6/2/2005 11:50:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, blc+@pitt.edu writes: Dear Philippe: Many thanks for this info. If the variation of unattached fraction is so large, why do mines depend solely on WL? In any case, the variation in homes can be very much larger because of systems for dust removal in common use. Dr. Cohen: I generally agree with your work and conclusions on indoor radon. However, the statement below troubles me. In theory, in laboratory conditions, one can approach a UF of 1.0. However, (and I have seen very little data on this point) I have never heard of real world UFs of more than 0.1, much less 1.0. If you do have such data, I would like to see it. In my house, we always seem to have plenty of dust, even with the electrostatic precipitator running. I have always believed that, in the real world of opening doors and leaking windows and cooking and playing children, there will always be plenty of "replacement dust" particles. In that case, I would take exception with your conclusion about electrostatic precipitators, and state that they would be a very good means of reducing lung exposure to radon daughters in homes that are not laboratory glove boxes. As such, we should be actively encouraging, not discouraging, their use. Gerald Gels _blc+@pitt.edu_ (mailto:blc+@pitt.edu) wrote: "As an example, one can drastically reduce the WL by removing the dust (for example, with an electrostatic precipitator), but the newly formed radon daughters have no dust to attach to, so UF = 1.0, and the danger is not reduced." From GRMarshall at philotechnics.com Fri Jun 3 16:11:51 2005 From: GRMarshall at philotechnics.com (Glenn R. Marshall) Date: Fri Jun 3 16:12:03 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU and other sublimed metals; nano-pathology Message-ID: <5B0DA358D2061D47A3BB00647C29D12F07A6C3@tnor-fpe.philotechnics.int> Only about 40% of the particles emitted from DU are alpha (from U-238 decay). The rest are beta (from Th-234 and Pa-234m), which have such short half lives that they are almost immediately in equilibrium with the parent. The next daughter in line, U-234 (245,000 year half life) has not had sufficient time to contribute any significant decay. The validity of this assumption varies somewhat depending on the percent enrichment from which the DU was the byproduct. Glenn Marshall, CHP -----Original Message----- From: James Salsman [mailto:james@bovik.org] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 4:33 PM To: Jeffrey Mellon Cc: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU and other sublimed metals; nano-pathology It's not the DU which has the absence of alpha particles, but rather the damage to DNA from DU in vitro is a million times more likely to have occurred from catalytic production of hydroxyl and other radicals than from alpha radiation. Sincerely, James Salsman Jeff Mellon wrote: > So DU has an "absence of significant alpha particle decay" and "it is > not considered to be a significant radiological hazard"?? These quotes > are from Dr. Alexandra C. Miller's 2001 article in the /Journal of > Inorganic Biochemistry --/ a link to same provided earlier in this exchange. > > The alphas from DU sure make MY Eberline alpha survey meter go bananas - > rather like natural U. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From blc+ at pitt.edu Fri Jun 3 16:35:58 2005 From: blc+ at pitt.edu (Bernard Cohen) Date: Fri Jun 3 16:29:50 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Residential radon risk In-Reply-To: <1e9.3d404186.2fd14723@aol.com> References: <1e9.3d404186.2fd14723@aol.com> Message-ID: <42A06ACE.2010400@pitt.edu> The only thing I know from my own research is that any one of several simple and cheap dust removal devices reduces radon daughters (WL) by a factor of 3 or more. My basis for believing that this benefit is largely neutralized by increases in unattached fraction are (1) some published studies the references to which I cannot now remember, and (2) the fact that this method for overcoming radon problems in homes has not been widely recommended or implemented, despite the fact that there were early relatively powerful promoters like Dade Moeller. For further info on this problem, one might contact Dade. I have never made measurements of unattched fractions that I considered to be reliable. GELSG@aol.com wrote: > >Dr. Cohen: > >As I mentioned before, I have not seen much beyond anecdotal evidence for >average unattached fraction values for the average home. My observations in my >own home, both with and without active electrostatic air cleaning, is that >there is always some dust. An electrostatic precipitator certainly helps to >remove dust, but there are many different ways to "resupply" dust to the home >environment, some of which I mentioned previously. > >If it were shown that home electrostatic precipitators did not drastically >reduce the average unattached fraction (it might not take that many dust >particles per cubic meter to provide sites for attachment), would you then agree >that use of such a device in the average home situation might substantially >reduce lung doses from radon daughters? > > ---I do not know enough to be entitled to an opinion on this. One would have to take other evidence into account. >Gerald Gels > >In a message dated 6/2/2005 11:50:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, >blc+@pitt.edu writes: > >Dear Philippe: >Many thanks for this info. If the variation of unattached fraction is so >large, why do mines depend solely on WL? In any case, the variation in >homes can be very much larger because of systems for dust removal in >common use. > > > > > > > >Dr. Cohen: > >I generally agree with your work and conclusions on indoor radon. However, >the statement below troubles me. In theory, in laboratory conditions, one >can approach a UF of 1.0. However, (and I have seen very little data on this >point) I have never heard of real world UFs of more than 0.1, much less 1.0. >If you do have such data, I would like to see it. In my house, we always >seem to have plenty of dust, even with the electrostatic precipitator running. >I have always believed that, in the real world of opening doors and leaking >windows and cooking and playing children, there will always be plenty of >"replacement dust" particles. In that case, I would take exception with your >conclusion about electrostatic precipitators, and state that they would be a very >good means of reducing lung exposure to radon daughters in homes that are >not laboratory glove boxes. As such, we should be actively encouraging, not >discouraging, their use. > >Gerald Gels > >_blc+@pitt.edu_ (mailto:blc+@pitt.edu) wrote: >"As an example, one >can drastically reduce the WL by removing the dust (for example, with an >electrostatic precipitator), but the newly formed radon daughters have >no dust to attach to, so UF = 1.0, and the danger is not reduced." > >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > From loc at icx.net Fri Jun 3 18:37:56 2005 From: loc at icx.net (Susan Gawarecki) Date: Fri Jun 3 18:29:20 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proximity to Power Lines at Birth May Increase Leukemia Risk Message-ID: <42A08764.1040407@icx.net> This may be of interest in the ongoing debate about health effects of electromagnetic fields. It also occurs to me that families living near power lines are more likely to be exposed to herbicide sprays used along the right-of-way. Susan Gawarecki Proximity to Power Lines at Birth May Increase Leukemia Risk By Tom Ewing , MedPage Today Staff Writer http://www.medpagetoday.com/tbindex1.cfm?tbid=1141 OXFORD, England, June 2-Children's risk for leukemia is slightly higher for those who lived in homes near high-voltage overhead electrical lines at birth, according to a large case-control study published in BMJ. The authors of the study were quick to point out that although the evidence suggests a causal relationship between overhead power lines and childhood leukemia that the phenomenon may be due to chance. "The most obvious explanation of the association of leukemia with distance from a power line is that it is a consequence of exposure to magnetic fields," wrote Gerald Draper, M.D., and colleagues at Oxford's Childhood Cancer Research Group. "However, we have no satisfactory explanation for our results in terms of causation by magnetic fields, and the findings are not supported by convincing laboratory data or any accepted biological mechanisms." In the largest case-control study on the subject, the researchers found that compared with those who lived more than 600 meters from a line at birth, children who lived within 200 meters had a relative risk of leukemia of 1.69 (95% CI 1.13-2.53). And compared with those who lived between 200 and 600 meters away from a power line, they had a relative leukemia risk of 1.23 (95% CI 1.02 -1.49). While there was a significant (P <0.01) trend in leukemia risk in relation to the reciprocal of distance from a line, no excess risk in relation to proximity to lines was found for other childhood cancers. The researchers used birth registry records to identify 29,081 children under age 15 who had been born in England or Wales between 1962 and 1995 and had been diagnosed with cancer (9,700 with leukemia). For each case, the researchers selected from birth registration records a control matched for sex, birth date, and birth-registration district. Using postal codes, the researchers identified those who had, at birth, been living within 1 km of a 132-kV, 275-kV, or 400-kV overhead power lines. For 93% of the addresses, the researchers obtained a 0.1-meter grid reference, with which they calculated the shortest distance to any of the transmission lines that had existed in the subjects' year of birth. This enabled the researchers to develop a complete set of accurate distances for all subjects within 600 meters of a line. On the basis of their investigation, the researchers concluded that there is an association between childhood leukemia and proximity of home address at birth to high-voltage power lines. The apparent risk extends to a greater distance than would have been expected from previous studies, they reported. Although few children in England and Wales live close to high-voltage power lines at birth, the researchers noted, "there is a slight tendency" for the birth addresses of children with leukemia to be close to these lines than those of matched controls. To put the risk in perspective, the researchers wrote that assuming that the higher risk of high-voltage lines is indeed a consequence of proximity to the lines, then of the 400 to 420 cases of childhood leukemia occurring annually in England and Wales, about five would be associated with power lines. This study returns to the long-held (1979) concern that the low-frequency magnetic fields produced by power lines may be associated with cancer, especially childhood cancer. In 2001, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified extremely low-frequency magnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic" on the basis of limited epidemiological evidence and "inadequate" evidence from animals. Expressing skepticism in a commentary accompanying the BMJ study, Heather Dickinson, Ph.D., a researcher at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, wrote: "Magnetic fields from power lines are very weak, so it would be surprising if they caused leukemia. The increased risk closer to power lines may reflect some other factor that varies geographically. "However, this study did not include estimates or measures of the magnetic field from either the power lines or other sources. "We don't yet fully understand the etiology of childhood leukemia. Nevertheless, we are now reasonably sure that it often involves damage to DNA before birth, probably in response to infection, chemicals, ionizing radiation, or other environmental exposures. " From loc at icx.net Fri Jun 3 19:08:40 2005 From: loc at icx.net (Susan Gawarecki) Date: Fri Jun 3 19:00:07 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SECURITY -- The super cask . . . Message-ID: <42A08E98.7070306@icx.net> SECURITY -- The super cask . . . Story Tips From the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory June 2005 A method for making super-tough, lower-cost containers to transport, protect and store spent nuclear reactor fuel rods has been patented by Oak Ridge National Laboratory researchers Charles Forsberg, Nuclear Science and Technology, and Vinod Sikka, Metals and Ceramics. The method uses a cermet, a metal-ceramic composite traditionally used for tank armor, machine tools and bank vaults. Cermet's strength, weight and radiation shielding properties make it an excellent material for spent nuclear fuel casks. However, welding and fabricating cermet into cask form has proven costly and difficult. The new ORNL method uses a hollow steel mold filled with a mixture of depleted uranium oxide, ceramics and steel powder. The cylinder is sealed, forged and compressed in a procedure that does not require welding of the cermet, avoids traditional manufacturing complications and may greatly lower fabrication costs. The technology could hasten development of a nearly indestructible "super cask" that saves money while improving security of spent nuclear fuel rods. (Funding: DOE Office of Environmental Management) [Contact: Mike Bradley, (865) 576-9553; bradleymk@ornl.gov] From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri Jun 3 19:13:07 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri Jun 3 19:13:18 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proximity to Power Lines at Birth May Increase Leukemia Risk In-Reply-To: <42A08764.1040407@icx.net> Message-ID: <20050603171307.54773.qmail@web54306.mail.yahoo.com> You have a good point. I am sure that there are lots of studies on chemicals and leukemia. Maybe it should be proposed that some researchers look into this specific aspect of chemical exposures. http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r38.html --- Susan Gawarecki wrote: > This may be of interest in the ongoing debate about > health effects of > electromagnetic fields. It also occurs to me that > families living near > power lines are more likely to be exposed to > herbicide sprays used along > the right-of-way. > > Susan Gawarecki > > Proximity to Power Lines at Birth May Increase > Leukemia Risk > By Tom Ewing , MedPage Today Staff Writer > http://www.medpagetoday.com/tbindex1.cfm?tbid=1141 > > OXFORD, England, June 2-Children's risk for leukemia > is slightly higher > for those who lived in homes near high-voltage > overhead electrical lines > at birth, according to a large case-control study > published in BMJ. > > The authors of the study were quick to point out > that although the > evidence suggests a causal relationship between > overhead power lines and > childhood leukemia that the phenomenon may be due to > chance. > > "The most obvious explanation of the association of > leukemia with > distance from a power line is that it is a > consequence of exposure to > magnetic fields," wrote Gerald Draper, M.D., and > colleagues at Oxford's > Childhood Cancer Research Group. > > "However, we have no satisfactory explanation for > our results in terms > of causation by magnetic fields, and the findings > are not supported by > convincing laboratory data or any accepted > biological mechanisms." > > In the largest case-control study on the subject, > the researchers found > that compared with those who lived more than 600 > meters from a line at > birth, children who lived within 200 meters had a > relative risk of > leukemia of 1.69 (95% CI 1.13-2.53). And compared > with those who lived > between 200 and 600 meters away from a power line, > they had a relative > leukemia risk of 1.23 (95% CI 1.02 -1.49). > > While there was a significant (P <0.01) trend in > leukemia risk in > relation to the reciprocal of distance from a line, > no excess risk in > relation to proximity to lines was found for other > childhood cancers. > > The researchers used birth registry records to > identify 29,081 children > under age 15 who had been born in England or Wales > between 1962 and 1995 > and had been diagnosed with cancer (9,700 with > leukemia). For each case, > the researchers selected from birth registration > records a control > matched for sex, birth date, and birth-registration > district. > > Using postal codes, the researchers identified those > who had, at birth, > been living within 1 km of a 132-kV, 275-kV, or > 400-kV overhead power > lines. For 93% of the addresses, the researchers > obtained a 0.1-meter > grid reference, with which they calculated the > shortest distance to any > of the transmission lines that had existed in the > subjects' year of > birth. This enabled the researchers to develop a > complete set of > accurate distances for all subjects within 600 > meters of a line. > > On the basis of their investigation, the researchers > concluded that > there is an association between childhood leukemia > and proximity of home > address at birth to high-voltage power lines. The > apparent risk extends > to a greater distance than would have been expected > from previous > studies, they reported. > > Although few children in England and Wales live > close to high-voltage > power lines at birth, the researchers noted, "there > is a slight > tendency" for the birth addresses of children with > leukemia to be close > to these lines than those of matched controls. > > To put the risk in perspective, the researchers > wrote that assuming that > the higher risk of high-voltage lines is indeed a > consequence of > proximity to the lines, then of the 400 to 420 cases > of childhood > leukemia occurring annually in England and Wales, > about five would be > associated with power lines. > > This study returns to the long-held (1979) concern > that the > low-frequency magnetic fields produced by power > lines may be associated > with cancer, especially childhood cancer. > > In 2001, the International Agency for Research on > Cancer classified > extremely low-frequency magnetic fields as "possibly > carcinogenic" on > the basis of limited epidemiological evidence and > "inadequate" evidence > from animals. > > Expressing skepticism in a commentary accompanying > the BMJ study, > Heather Dickinson, Ph.D., a researcher at the > University of Newcastle > upon Tyne, wrote: > > "Magnetic fields from power lines are very weak, so > it would be > surprising if they caused leukemia. The increased > risk closer to power > lines may reflect some other factor that varies > geographically. > > "However, this study did not include estimates or > measures of the > magnetic field from either the power lines or other > sources. > > "We don't yet fully understand the etiology of > childhood leukemia. > Nevertheless, we are now reasonably sure that it > often involves damage > to DNA before birth, probably in response to > infection, chemicals, > ionizing radiation, or other environmental > exposures. " > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing > list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have > read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be > found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe > and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html From paksbi at rit.edu Fri Jun 3 19:47:05 2005 From: paksbi at rit.edu (A Karam) Date: Fri Jun 3 19:47:09 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proximity to Power Lines at Birth May IncreaseLeukemia Risk Message-ID: <8C7AD67141A06D499823B280003E6C020150CC31@svits11.main.ad.rit.edu> Anyone interested in this topic should read the book "Voodoo Science" by Robert Park. Park is a Ph.D. physicist who ran a very successful research group for years before moving into science policy. This topic is one that he covers fairly thoroughly in his book, concluding that many studies have shown no effect while only a few have shown even mild effects. He also discusses perpetual motion and cold fusion, both of which pretty much fall into the same category of power line-induced cancer. An article in Physics Today that appeared at least a decade ago came to a similar conclusion, but this one looked only at the physics of the situation. It seems that our bodies induce electric fields simply by being electrically conductive and passing through the earth's magnetic field. It also turns out that the fields induced in this manner are much greater than those we experience from power lines, making any claims of effects from power lines questionable, to say the least. Andy From maurysis at ev1.net Fri Jun 3 19:52:31 2005 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Fri Jun 3 19:51:12 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proximity to Bush Hogs and Leukaemia Message-ID: <42A098DF.7080604@ev1.net> Upon first exposure to this article, I thought of Radsafe, but dismissed it because of length. But this stuff is as unending as the HV power lines throughout the nation. Since when has correlation accepted as a basis for cause/effect conclusions. In my area, the sole control of plant growth is huge mowers; no herbicides are used. Maybe the childhood cancers result from the excess rabbit population in these easements; maybe the weed or grass species produce super-pollen generated by ELF; maybe the open space breaks in housing densities allow leukaemia germs to proliferate; and so on. And the conclusion by James LeFanu cited in the final paragraph prompts me to think of the dire threat of radon .... To some, please accept an apology for the length, but if this ELF flight of fancy might be curtailed, then it seems worthwhile. Sincerely, Maury&Dog (Maury Siskel maurysis@ev1.net) ======================= Currents of Death? Twenty-five years of research has rubbished claims of a link between childhood cancer and overhead power lines. So why do new studies keep appearing? by Adam Burgess A new epidemiological study suggesting a link between childhood cancer and overhead power lines was launched at a press conference yesterday, 2 June. The study, which appears in the British Medical Journal with an accompanying editorial, immediately generated considerable media interest (1). Over 29,000 children with cancer, including 9,700 with leukaemia, were included in the study. The children were aged 0-14 years and were born in England and Wales between 1962 and 1995. They were compared with a control group of children individually matched for sex, approximate date of birth, and birth registration district. The distance of each child's home address at birth from the nearest high voltage power line was calculated. Children who lived within 200m of high voltage power lines at birth appeared to have a 70 per cent raised risk of leukaemia compared with those who lived beyond 600m. There was also a slightly increased risk for those living 200 to 600m from the lines at birth. The press release is at pains to emphasise that the results should be treated with caution, and even if there were some role played by these so-called power frequencies (or what is known by the usual acronym ELF - extremely low frequency fields), this could only explain a very small number of childhood leukaemias. Usefully, the press release explains the scale of the possible association: 'To put these risks into perspective, about five of the 400-420 cases of childhood leukaemia that occur annually in England and Wales may be associated with power lines.' The authors add that the effect could be simply down to chance or another cause. The most important so-called 'confounding factor' (all the other influences that equally might explain any association found between one factor and another) in this case has long been recognised to be the fact that neighbourhoods with heavy concentrations of power lines are typically poor, congested and polluted - all of which are risk factors for cancer. This is particularly relevant with this study. As the Institute of Electrical Engineers points out in its press release, also published on 2 June, the elevated rates are found some 600 metres from the power lines. It explains: 'At these distances, the magnetic fields in homes due to the lines are negligible compared to background levels.' Given that it is generally accepted that it could only be the magnetic fields generated by power lines that might cause a problem, it must be something other than the power lines themselves that explains the results. With such a tiny possible problem identified, and with such heavy qualification provided, one is left to wonder why this study was deemed worthy of such attention. Given that the research was not stimulated by an evident problem - notably any increased incidence of leukaemia among children - one might also ask why the study was carried out in the first place. This is particularly the case given that the anxiety over a potential link between power lines and childhood leukaemia dates back over 25 years, and has already generated a large amount of research. So why do the researchers' conclude that even more research is needed? Not only is it questionable whether such a tiny association merits further investigation in itself, but the enormous quantity of previous research in this area has effectively ruled out any such need. Like other such 'microwave anxieties', the power line issue is American in origin and it is instructive to look at its history. The issue was brought to prominence by a single individual, Paul Brodeur. He was a writer for the New Yorker magazine who turned his attention to environmental health issues in the late 1960s. Through a series of articles and a subsequent book, Brodeur first of all made a name for himself by suggesting that microwaves such as in microwave ovens could cause harm - despite their acknowledged inability to damage DNA, the key effect of cancer-inducing agents. As the subsequent microwave panic subsided, Brodeur turned his attention to power lines. In scientific terms, grounds for concern were laid by a small study of childhood leukaemia patients in Denver carried out by Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper in 1979. They suggested that children from homes near power lines were three times more likely to develop leukaemia. At such a low frequency (around 60 Hz) at one end of the electromagnetic spectrum, there is not even the heating effect created by microwaves. The only concern was that the effect of the alternating magnetic fields created by power lines might somehow interfere with our cancer defences. The accumulated evidence conclusively suggests that they do not. When Brodeur turned his attention to the issue some years later, however, power lines became a major focus for anxiety within American society. In 1989 he wrote a series of articles for the New Yorker that drew upon his earlier attack on microwaves, but this time focused attention upon power lines. Brodeur made a massive media impact with his articles and subsequently produced a book, Currents of Death. Single-handedly Brodeur stimulated a massive research programme into this highly improbable threat. Although only one seriously-regarded study seemed to confirm the possibility of such an association, power lines became a major concern in the early 1990s - even making an appearance in Eddie Murphy's 1992 film The Distinguished Gentleman. Besides Brodeur's efforts, probably most important in raising anxiety was a preliminary report by the American Environmental Protection Agency in 1990, which suggested a 'probable' link between power lines and cancer - a wording that was subsequently corrected to 'possible' after the media damage had already been done. The high profile created for the power line issue ensured that an enormous amount of research resources were dedicated to it. A 1994 study, for example, that typically found no overall increased cancer risk, looked at 223,000 Canadian and French electrical workers over four years. A similar American study the following year had an even larger population and found that the cancer rate among electrical workers is lower than the general population. The renowned physicist Robert Park, in his book, Voodoo Science, identifies two decisive moments in what he calls 'slamming the door shut' on the controversy (2). The first was the so-called Stevens report by the (American) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 1996, which concluded definitively that 'the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human health hazard'. Significantly, and unlike the single study released today, the NAS report was based upon a review of all the relevant research literature published to date - some 500 studies. According to its review, any link was too weak to detect or to be concerned about. In the face of such growing evidence Brodeur became increasingly conspiratorial; a subsequent series of articles was also turned into a book, this time called The Great Power-Line Cover Up. But a further blow was struck in the year following the NAS review. In 1997, the prestigious National Cancer Institute (NCI) announced the results of its exhaustive seven-year investigation into the purported childhood leukaemia/power line connection. The NCI study found no association at all, effectively establishing that the link suggested by earlier research was just an artefact of earlier statistical analysis. As Park wrote, 'As is so often the case with voodoo science, with every improved study the effect had gotten smaller. Now, after 18 years, it was gone completely'. In the wake of these findings, and the realisation of just how many resources had been spent on a fruitless scientific quest initiated by an enterprising journalist, there was sober reflection within the American scientific community. The White House Science Committee calculated that $25 billion had been spent - including relocating people from their houses. The Department of Energy closed down the EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination (RAPID) programme created by Congress in 1992. As Park points out in Voodoo Science, this didn't prevent another committee defining Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF) as a 'possible carcinogen' only a year later. Yet the press release for the study released yesterday keeps the controversy going, by pointing out that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) defines ELF as 'possibly carcinogenic'. But we should recognise that 'possibly' has very little meaning, and represents less a simple scientific judgement than an attempt to play cautious science politics. Given the highly cautious way in which science politics has subsequently progressed, it was widely recognised that the IARC would be unwilling to dismiss any cancer risk and would opt for the much safer definition of 'possible'. By contrast, an editorial in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine following the release of the NCI study in 1997 remains admirably clear: 'It is sad that hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into studies that never had much promise of finding a way to prevent the tragedy of cancer in children. The many inconclusive and inconsistent studies have generated worry and fear and have given peace of mind to no one. The 18 years of research have produced considerable paranoia, but little insight and no prevention. It's time to stop wasting our resources. We should redirect them to research that will be able to discover the true biologic causes of the leukemic clones that threaten the lives of children.' In The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine, the doctor and medical writer James LeFanu suggested that closing down all the epidemiology departments in the country would, at a stroke, greatly minimise health anxiety within society (3). When it comes to the presentation of power lines as 'currents of death', I'm inclined to agree. _____________ Adam Burgess is lecturer in sociology at the University of Kent and author of Cellular Phones, Public Fears and a Culture of Precaution (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004) (1) 'Is there a link between childhood cancer and overhead power lines? Childhood cancer in relation to distance from high voltage power lines in England and Wales: a case-control study', British Medical Journal, Volume 330, pp 1290-2; and 'Science commentary: Power to confuse', British Medical Journal, Volume 330, p 1293. 'Editorial: The causes of childhood leukaemia' British Medical Journal, Volume 330, pp 1279-80 (2) Robert Parks, Voodoo Science (Oxford University Press, 2000) (3) James LeFanu, The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine (London: Abacus, 1999) From kkiger at roseville.ca.us Fri Jun 3 20:19:43 2005 From: kkiger at roseville.ca.us (Kiger, Kevin) Date: Fri Jun 3 20:20:07 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Microwave and RF radiation detection and protection Message-ID: <7603A374B429554B80EBA17ABE76109BED40A0@oak-e1.rosenet.loc> I have worked for many years in ionizing radiation, but now, working for an electric utility, I have to deal with protecting my workers from the hazards associated with non-ionizing radiation. Utility workers now have the potential of being exposed to various energy levels of non-ionizing radiation without knowing the risks. I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to gather information that can be useful in teaching them what to be aware of and how to recognize the hazards. Utilities in the US now are allowing telecommunication companies to place transmitters and receivers on power poles and transmission towers. My dilemma is to gather sufficient information to truly inform my folks as to the hazards and to help them with understanding the needs for any PPE and the use of detection instrumentation. Though we do not have any issues at the current time, my employees may be asked to provide mutual aid to a utility that has antenna's and receivers in their system. Any guidance from this group will be greatly appreciated. ********************************** Kevin M. Kiger Safety and Reliability Supervisor Roseville Electric (916) 774-5667 (916) 759-2574 Cell ********************************** From rorthen at cecinc.com Fri Jun 3 20:39:17 2005 From: rorthen at cecinc.com (Rick Orthen) Date: Fri Jun 3 20:39:34 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Microwave and RF radiation detection and protection In-Reply-To: <7603A374B429554B80EBA17ABE76109BED40A0@oak-e1.rosenet.loc> Message-ID: <200506031439426.SM01540@rorthen> Dr. John Moulder (Professor and Director of Radiation Biology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin) is a recognized SME on the health effects of exposure to power frequency fields (PFFs). He maintains an excellent web knowledge base at http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/powerlines-cancer-FAQ/toc.html. He has been helpful answering my questions in the past. The results of a British case-control study released this month [http://www.powerlinefacts.com/British%20Medical%20Journal%20June%202005.pdf ] is sure to stir the pot some. Stay tuned. Richard F. Orthen Senior Project Manager Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. Four Triangle Lane, Suite 200 Export, PA 15632-9255 724/327-5200, ext. 231 www.cecinc.com From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Fri Jun 3 20:44:02 2005 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto G. Raabe) Date: Fri Jun 3 20:45:08 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proximity to Power Lines at Birth May Increase Leukemia Risk In-Reply-To: <42A08764.1040407@icx.net> References: <42A08764.1040407@icx.net> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050603113902.03461a38@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 09:37 AM 6/3/2005, Susan Gawarecki wrote: >OXFORD, England, June 2-Children's risk for leukemia is slightly higher >for those who lived in homes near high-voltage overhead electrical lines >at birth, according to a large case-control study published in BMJ. ************************************************* A mathematical association is not proof of risk. In this case, they looked at all forms of cancer with significance assumed at P=0.05. Finding one that is significantly high (leukemia) and one that is signifcantly low (not mentioned) can reasonably occur by pure chance when multiple comparisons are made. Otto ********************************************** Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP Center for Health & the Environment (Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road) University of California, Davis, CA 95616 E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140 *********************************************** From maurysis at ev1.net Fri Jun 3 21:11:43 2005 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Fri Jun 3 21:10:23 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Microwave and RF radiation detection and protection In-Reply-To: <7603A374B429554B80EBA17ABE76109BED40A0@oak-e1.rosenet.loc> References: <7603A374B429554B80EBA17ABE76109BED40A0@oak-e1.rosenet.loc> Message-ID: <42A0AB6F.2080002@ev1.net> Hi Kevin, the three links below will give you a running start on your concerns. Cheers, Maury&Dog (Maury Siskel maurysis@ev1.net) http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/cat63.html http://www.rfsafetysolutions.com/health_effects.htm http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/healtheffects.html ==================== Kiger, Kevin wrote: >I have worked for many years in ionizing radiation, but now, working for an electric utility, I have to deal with protecting my workers from the hazards associated with non-ionizing radiation. Utility workers now have the potential of being exposed to various energy levels of non-ionizing radiation without knowing the risks. I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to gather information that can be useful in teaching them what to be aware of and how to recognize the hazards. > >Utilities in the US now are allowing telecommunication companies to place transmitters and receivers on power poles and transmission towers. My dilemma is to gather sufficient information to truly inform my folks as to the hazards and to help them with understanding the needs for > > ----------- snipped ------------ From Patrick.Glennon at tenethealth.com Fri Jun 3 21:21:52 2005 From: Patrick.Glennon at tenethealth.com (Glennon, Patrick) Date: Fri Jun 3 21:22:56 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indoor Radon Message-ID: <6640A27C183D584997B243765F1C71C8168C5A@tenhdcthemx06.tenethealth.net> Listers, No one has yet addressed my initial posting. Instead the discussion has morphed into a debate on the proper value of the attached fraction of radon progeny. May I suggest that we are missing the forest for the trees. I think we would benefit more by looking at the larger picture. That picture is that even using the EPA's numbers the proper response to indoor radon is ---"Big Deal, So What." Radon may indeed be the second leading contributor to lung cancer after cigarettes but it is a way distant second; at least one order of magnitude and maybe more. I grew up in northern NJ and know that the Passaic Falls in Paterson NJ are the second highest falls east of the Mississippi after Niagara. Look them up using an internet search engine and you'll see that they are a good analogy for the radon/cigarette comparison. Using information from EPA 402-R-03-003 "EPA Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes" published in 2003 I find the following: (1) EPA estimates that reducing indoor radon concentrations to 4 pCi/l would avert approximately one third of all radon induced lung cancers [pg. 3], (2) 93% of all lung cancer deaths in 1995 were in Ever Smokers [ES] [also pg. 3], (3) depending on the model chosen somewhere between 2100 and 2900 of the cancer deaths in 1995 among Never Smokers [NS] were attributable to radon [Table 5 on pg. 16], and (4) 157,400 total lung cancer deaths occurred in 1995 [again Table 5 on pg. 16]. It doesn't take many calculations to arrive at the following conclusions: (1) achieving EPA's concentration goal would save fewer than 1000 NS deaths per year. Remember that this is in a pool of 157,400 lung cancer deaths per year! The overall lung cancer death rate would drop by 0.6% --Wow, now that's significant! (2) If all the resources spent on reducing indoor radon risks were instead diverted into persuading people not to smoke in the first place, you would only have to persuade about 1000 persons per year to become never smokers to get the same lung cancer death reduction; any more and you're ahead. This is out of a population of over 250,000,000. Should be do-able don't you think? By the way, I have only addressed never smokers because I think it is patently absurd to focus on the (distant) second leading risk without aggressively addressing the first. Patrick Glennon Philadelphia --------------------------------------------------------------- Important News about Future Email Communications In the near future, Tenet and its affiliates will be implementing encryption technology for emails that is intended to protect the privacy and security of confidential information contained in the emails originating from its system. When implemented, you will receive a 'Zix Secure Message' with a link to view all encrypted email sent to you from our system. At that time, please follow the directions included at the link site in order to view the encrypted mail sent to you. To learn more about ZixMail and ZixMessage Center for Tenet and its affiliates, please go to http://userawareness.zixcorp.com/tenetcorp. Internal email users at Tenet and its affiliates may find out more information about encrypting email messages at https://secure.etenet.com/Departments/InformationSystems/Operations/SecureEmail.htm. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri Jun 3 21:50:03 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri Jun 3 21:50:16 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indoor Radon In-Reply-To: <6640A27C183D584997B243765F1C71C8168C5A@tenhdcthemx06.tenethealth.net> Message-ID: <20050603195004.97019.qmail@web54301.mail.yahoo.com> I guess you have not been on this list before. Threads commonly wander off of the original subject. However, this is sometimes produces some interesting bits of information. --- "Glennon, Patrick" wrote: > Listers, > No one has yet addressed my initial posting. > Instead the discussion has morphed into a debate on > the proper value of the attached fraction of radon > progeny. . . . +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri Jun 3 21:53:57 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri Jun 3 21:54:06 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Report on NAS Study on Bunker Buster Nuclear Weapons Message-ID: <20050603195357.40076.qmail@web54307.mail.yahoo.com> >From another list server. It will interesting to see how the budget issues play out. -----Original Message----- From: fyi@aip.org [mailto:fyi@aip.org] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 3:45 PM To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS) Subject: FYI #83: NAS Study on Bunker Buster Weapons FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 83: June 3, 2005 NAS Committee Reviews "Bunker Buster" Weapons One of the more contentious issues in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill last year was the funding of a program to study nuclear earth-penetrator weapons. Also known as RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator) or a nuclear "bunker buster," the proposed weapon is designed to hold-at-risk deeply buried targets beyond the range of conventional weapons. Last year, Congress voted to deny funding for the study of this weapon. The House of Representatives recently passed its version of the FY 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill which did not include funding for such a nuclear weapon study (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/073.html.) The House-passed version of the FY 2006 Defense Authorization bill worked around this controversy by removing the nuclear component from a study of earth penetrator weapons systems (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/078.html) and by shifting the proposed work from the Department of Energy to the Department of Defense. The Defense Authorization Act for FY 2003 mandated that a study be performed on the health and environmental impacts of an RNEP weapon. A National Research Council "Committee on the Effects of Nuclear Earth-Penetrator and Other Weapons" conducted this study. Fifteen experts from the university, private, and national laboratory communities served on this committee, chaired by John F. Ahearne of Sigma Xi. The committee released its study http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11282.html ) in a prepublication format in late April. The study cites an estimate by the Defense Intelligence Agency that there are approximately 10,000 hard and deeply buried targets in the potential U.S. adversaries. Of these, about 20% "have a major strategic function," of which more than a hundred could be targeted by an RNEP weapon. These facilities are used to protect leaders, key personnel, weapons, equipment, and other assets and activities. Some of the facilities are located in the basements of multistory buildings in cities. Much of the study is fairly technical. The committee summarized their findings in nine "most important conclusions," which are available at this NAS site: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11282.html Among them are the following: "Many of the more important strategic hard and deeply buried targets (HDBTs) are beyond the research of conventional explosive penetrating weapons and can be held at risk of destruction only with nuclear weapons. Many - but not all - known and/or identified hard and deeply buried targets can be held at risk of destruction by one or a few nuclear weapons." "Current experience and empirical predictions indicate that earth-penetrator weapons cannot penetrate to depths required for total containment of the effects of a nuclear explosion." "For attacks near or in densely populated urban areas using nuclear earth-penetrator weapons on hard and deeply buried targets (HDBTs), the number of casualties can range from thousands to more than a million, depending primarily on weapon yield. For attacks on HDBTs in remote, lightly populated areas, casualties can range from as few as hundreds at low weapon yields to hundreds of thousands at high yields and with unfavorable winds." "For urban targets, civilian casualties from a nuclear earth-penetrator weapon are reduced by a factor of 2 to 10 compared with those from a surface burst having 25 times the yield." ############### Richard M. Jones Media and Government Relations Division The American Institute of Physics fyi@aip.org http://www.aip.org/gov (301) 209-3094 ##END########## +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From james at bovik.org Sat Jun 4 00:55:44 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Sat Jun 4 00:56:03 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIHresearch Message-ID: <42A0DFF0.2080203@bovik.org> Don Mercado wrote, in reply to: > > "Each 30 mm round of DU ordnance suspends on average about 60 grams > of elemental uranium in the form of various oxides in the air." > > *Each* round, or those which hit something and burn? Every round > that fires doesn't burn, some that do burn are buried in the ground > and produce no "inhalable particles", etc. Right, each round has about 280 grams of metallic uranium, so based on the percentage that burn when fired at a hard target times the average fraction of metal consumed in those that do burn works out to 20%, or 60 grams each. > ... And you STILL haven't answered the question of what dose the > inhaled particles deliver. "Multi-milligram quantities a km away" > mean nothing if there's no concentration figure. Take what > multi-milligram quantity and spread it over 20 cubic km and you > have nothing. Even if you ignore uranium trioxide, which everyone except Salbu et al. last year has, then you still get multimiligram resperable quantities of U3O8 and UO2 dust at least 1200 meters downwind, even in a fairly strong wind: Mitsakou, et al., "Modeling the Dispersion of Depleted Uranium Aerosol," Health Physics, vol. 84, no. 4 (2003), pp. 538-544: http://www.bovik.org/du/aerosol.pdf And, I should point out that even if the "Estimate of the time zero lung burden of depleted uranium in Persian Gulf War veterans by the 24-hour urinary excretion and exponential decay analysis," (Military Medicine, vol. 168, no. 8 (2003), pp. 600-605) article in fact did use a slower solubility factor than is actually the case, then the actual inhalation exposure of the symptomatic patients is still just 0.34 mg for the UO2 and U3O8 oxides that they assumed were the only products inhaled. So in determining stand-off requirements, it will not matter how much UO3(g) the victims do inhale, because the lung clearance rate from the insoluble oxides is all that counts if you assume that the uranyl inhalation takes place independently. So even if their actual total uranium exposure was much larger, if all you have to go on are the insoluble oxides, then you can assume that you don't want to get 0.34 mg of those, because that level of those oxides yields symptoms, regardless of how much soluble oxide comes along with that inhalation level. Sincerely, James Salsman From jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca Sat Jun 4 00:57:09 2005 From: jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca (Jaro) Date: Sat Jun 4 00:57:15 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Report on NAS Study on Bunker Buster Nuclear Weapons In-Reply-To: <20050603195357.40076.qmail@web54307.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This NAS Study on Bunker Busters is silly. Its publicly known that DU rods, perhaps 20 feet long and one foot in diameter, striking at speeds upwards of 12,000 feet per second, could reach hardened bunkers several stories underground. Its not a new concept. They're colloquially called "Rods from God", because they come down from space -- like any other ballistic missile RV (Reentry Vehicle). The big difference is that they are much heavier, so fewer of them (one?) can be launched at a time, unlike the many warheads on a MIRVed missile. Also, they use a low altitude (~100 - 300 mile), high-speed, fractional-orbital trajectory -- unlike the high-arcing but much slower, sub-orbital-speed ICBM missiles (over 1,000 miles peak altitude). On the way down, a small solid-rocket booster can further accelerate the penetrator by another couple thousand feet per second -- or whatever it takes to reach the required depth (its a tricky maneuver, because one normally fires "retro rockets" to drop out of orbit -- but this is something else, using a high-energy trajectory...). Problem is that once at the right depth, there might still be a hundred feet or more of rock between the penetrator and the bunker target. Being small diameter, the "Rod from God" would not be able to carry sufficient conventional explosive to guarantee severe damage the bunker. You have three guesses what would. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl]On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 3:54 PM To: radsafe; know_nukes@yahoogroups.com Subject: [ RadSafe ] Report on NAS Study on Bunker Buster Nuclear Weapons >From another list server. It will interesting to see how the budget issues play out. -----Original Message----- From: fyi@aip.org [mailto:fyi@aip.org] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 3:45 PM To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS) Subject: FYI #83: NAS Study on Bunker Buster Weapons FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 83: June 3, 2005 NAS Committee Reviews "Bunker Buster" Weapons One of the more contentious issues in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill last year was the funding of a program to study nuclear earth-penetrator weapons. Also known as RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator) or a nuclear "bunker buster," the proposed weapon is designed to hold-at-risk deeply buried targets beyond the range of conventional weapons. Last year, Congress voted to deny funding for the study of this weapon. The House of Representatives recently passed its version of the FY 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill which did not include funding for such a nuclear weapon study (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/073.html.) The House-passed version of the FY 2006 Defense Authorization bill worked around this controversy by removing the nuclear component from a study of earth penetrator weapons systems (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/078.html) and by shifting the proposed work from the Department of Energy to the Department of Defense. The Defense Authorization Act for FY 2003 mandated that a study be performed on the health and environmental impacts of an RNEP weapon. A National Research Council "Committee on the Effects of Nuclear Earth-Penetrator and Other Weapons" conducted this study. Fifteen experts from the university, private, and national laboratory communities served on this committee, chaired by John F. Ahearne of Sigma Xi. The committee released its study http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11282.html ) in a prepublication format in late April. The study cites an estimate by the Defense Intelligence Agency that there are approximately 10,000 hard and deeply buried targets in the potential U.S. adversaries. Of these, about 20% "have a major strategic function," of which more than a hundred could be targeted by an RNEP weapon. These facilities are used to protect leaders, key personnel, weapons, equipment, and other assets and activities. Some of the facilities are located in the basements of multistory buildings in cities. Much of the study is fairly technical. The committee summarized their findings in nine "most important conclusions," which are available at this NAS site: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11282.html Among them are the following: "Many of the more important strategic hard and deeply buried targets (HDBTs) are beyond the research of conventional explosive penetrating weapons and can be held at risk of destruction only with nuclear weapons. Many - but not all - known and/or identified hard and deeply buried targets can be held at risk of destruction by one or a few nuclear weapons." "Current experience and empirical predictions indicate that earth-penetrator weapons cannot penetrate to depths required for total containment of the effects of a nuclear explosion." "For attacks near or in densely populated urban areas using nuclear earth-penetrator weapons on hard and deeply buried targets (HDBTs), the number of casualties can range from thousands to more than a million, depending primarily on weapon yield. For attacks on HDBTs in remote, lightly populated areas, casualties can range from as few as hundreds at low weapon yields to hundreds of thousands at high yields and with unfavorable winds." "For urban targets, civilian casualties from a nuclear earth-penetrator weapon are reduced by a factor of 2 to 10 compared with those from a surface burst having 25 times the yield." ############### Richard M. Jones Media and Government Relations Division The American Institute of Physics fyi@aip.org http://www.aip.org/gov (301) 209-3094 ##END########## -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.1 - Release Date: 6/3/2005 From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Sat Jun 4 20:41:14 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Sat Jun 4 20:41:24 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Report on NAS Study on Bunker Buster Nuclear Weapons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050604184114.17417.qmail@web54304.mail.yahoo.com> I guess not everyone has heard of using uraniun rods as munitions. Do you have references? --- Jaro wrote: > This NAS Study on Bunker Busters is silly. > > Its publicly known that DU rods, perhaps 20 feet > long and one foot in > diameter, striking at speeds upwards of 12,000 feet > per second, could reach > hardened bunkers several stories underground. > Its not a new concept. > They're colloquially called "Rods from God", because > they come down from > space -- like any other +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sat Jun 4 23:32:46 2005 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Sat Jun 4 23:33:23 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] RE: Report on NAS Study on Bunker Buster NuclearWeapons In-Reply-To: <20050604184114.17417.qmail@web54304.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <022c01c5694c$f6b3d9e0$bf572fd5@pc1> John, All DU penetration ammunition contains in a (stainless steel?) casing DU in the form of rods. Dimensions can be easily found on the internet. So it is quite logical, that larger rods might have a much more devastating and penetrating effect. But I am convinced that it is not at all done by throwing down DU rods to the earth (where from?). The penetration through soil should in my opinion differ greatly from the penetration through a tank shielding. Modern methods for shielding against bullets and also DU ammunition have shown strikingly evidence that such materials which can easily absorbs shocks and impact are very active. Or why do you think military all of the world uses since more than hundred years sandsacks as a defence against enemy fire??? I cannot avoid to wonder, what this ammunition should be good for. Destroy the communication of your enemy and everything will follow. The "colloquial" name of this weapon as "Rods from God" is disgusting and shows all the cynism of designers of so called "modern" weapons. Best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] Im > Auftrag von John Jacobus > Gesendet: Samstag, 04. Juni 2005 20:41 > An: Jaro; know_nukes@yahoogroups.com; RADSAFE > Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Report on NAS Study on Bunker Buster > NuclearWeapons > > I guess not everyone has heard of using uraniun rods > as munitions. Do you have references? > > --- Jaro wrote: > > This NAS Study on Bunker Busters is silly. > > > > Its publicly known that DU rods, perhaps 20 feet > > long and one foot in > > diameter, striking at speeds upwards of 12,000 feet > > per second, could reach > > hardened bunkers several stories underground. > > Its not a new concept. > > They're colloquially called "Rods from God", because > > they come down from > > space -- like any other > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never > shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. > > -- John > John Jacobus, MS > Certified Health Physicist > e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com > > > > __________________________________ > Discover Yahoo! > Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! > http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sun Jun 5 23:42:53 2005 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Sun Jun 5 23:43:19 2005 Subject: AW: [norm-tenorm] AW: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: What is Depleted Uranium? In-Reply-To: <006401c56725$097b65e0$d964bc46@yourae066c3a9b> Message-ID: <000001c56a17$88bee0d0$bf572fd5@pc1> Dear collegues and friends, I have some problems again to understand this Mitchell Davis. First of all I cannot see any reason for his outburst of bad language, which seems not to be the language of an educated scientist or health physicist. Secondly, nobody can apologize for something I, Franz Schoenhofer, am responsible for and the absolut very last person I would authorize for doing it would be this subject. This Mitchell Davis seems to have some problems also in this case with logic and perception. I, Franz Schoenhofer, do not apologize, I rather belief, that my forwarding might help persons on the lists who consider to take into consideration his "courses", to make a decision. I would never pay any money to somebody who uses this language without any reason for whatever. If this Mitchell Davis wants to apologize anything then it should be to the list members that he uses this language, not even to me, because I would not accept any apology, because this person has sent in the past several very similar postings to lists I am subscribed to. If he (nobody else has done this before) desires, that his unacceptable and unexcusable posts either to me personally or to any list should not be forwarded to whom ever, he has to refrain from them. His threat of "legal actions" only makes me laugh. Anyway he is banned from now on from my incoming e-mails and I hope that he will be closely monitored by the list owners. First of all it is not the task of either list to promote commercial advertising. This subject has to my recollection never contributed anything except advertising his business, so he has violated the list rules. He has used the list and my private address from list traffic for his unacceptable postings both to me and the lists - another violation. To put the blame on me is therefore totally unjustified. To sign his message with "respectfully" is sheer mockery when regarding the language of his messages to me. Since I will not receive in the future any of his intended offences I will not be able to send any replies to either list - so nobody (Phil!) needs to be afraid of receiving any one in the future. Best wishes to everybody Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] Im > Auftrag von Mitchell Davis > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 02. Juni 2005 05:42 > An: norm-tenorm@yahoogroups.com; RADSAFE > Betreff: Re: [norm-tenorm] AW: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: What is Depleted Uranium? > > Colleagues: > > I apologize for Franz's lapse in judgment. I sent a message to him to his > personal email. It is he who chose to "broadcast" it to the associated > lists. It is my commitment to keep any personal issues we have with each > other private. If he chooses to broadcast them to the lists, it is his > decision and his decision alone. > > Respectfully, > > Mitchell W. Davis, RRPT > Health Physicist > Radiation Protection Consultants > 432-697-3523 > 432-349-4824 (Cell) > radiation@cox.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Franz Sch?nhofer" > To: "'Mitchell Davis'" ; "RADSAFE" ; > "NORM-TENORM (NORM-TENORM)" > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 6:56 PM > Subject: [norm-tenorm] AW: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: What is Depleted Uranium? > > > Is there anybody at RADSAFE or NORM-TENORM who could explain to me the > meaning of this message which was sent to me in response to a message to > Norm Cohen at the RADSAFE list, critizising a "geoscientist" who tells the > world about "What is Depleted Uranium?". > > Mr. Davis Mitchell has earlier sent several insulting messages about me to > the RADSAFE-list. He obviously only uses both lists to advertise his > "courses" on NORM. Whether such a person is suitable or certified to hold > courses on NORM and radiation protection is a question open to anybody who > reads his advertisments. Both RADSAFE and NORM-TENORM lists are not > intended > for advertising "money making activities". > > It is of course up to the list-owners to make a decision, but I personally > would believe, that such a person should be banned from participation on > the > lists, since he only distributes "money making activities" and insults, > far > beyond any flaming. He does not make any other contribution to the lists. > I > would not be surprised, if his insults were related to intoxication by > ethanol, I have no other explanation, somebody might have. > > Mr. Davis: If you regard forwarding your insults to me to other list > participants as "undermining your money making activities" I would > recommend > that you do not send any insults to me, neither through the lists or to me > personally. I recommend not to use the internet when you obviously are > impaired by the use of certain chemicals. For your law suits you are > threatening me with I wish you good luck. You can only loose the money, > which you obviously do not earn with your "business". > > With my best regards, > > Franz > > Franz Schoenhofer > PhD, MR iR > Habicherg. 31/7 > A-1160 Vienna > AUSTRIA > phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Mitchell Davis [mailto:radiation@cox.net] > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 02. Juni 2005 00:58 > > An: Franz Sch?nhofer > > Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: What is Depleted Uranium? > > > > But Franz...you ARE an idiot!!!!...I've know this for years. And if you > > try > > to undermine my money making activities in the future, the law suit will > > be > > coming your way you piece of S++T!!!!! > > > > Mitchell W. Davis, RRPT > > Health Physicist > > Radiation Protection Consultants > > 432-697-3523 > > 432-349-4824 (Cell) > > radiation@cox.net > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Franz Sch?nhofer" > > To: "'Norm Cohen'" ; ; > > ; > > Cc: ; > > ; > > "'du-watch.yahoogroups.com'" > > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 2:05 PM > > Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: What is Depleted Uranium? > > > > > > > Norman, > > > > > > Thank you for telling me, "What is Depleted Uranium". I have studied > > > chemistry for 11 years before graduation as a PhD, my PhD work was in > > > radiochemistry. I have spent decades in radioactivity environmental > > > protection, I have been in the forefront of the Austrian Chernobyl > > > Mitigation and also wrote the official report on the effect of the > > > Chernobyl > > > accident on Austria. Thank you that you forward to me "What is > Depleted > > > Uranium". Therefore I think it is somewhat challenging to receive from > > you > > > the interesting lecture of a geoscientist, who works around the clock > (I > > > personally worked during the heydays of the Chernobyl accident up to > 20 > > > hours, but not more), who is touring the world and living on its > > obviously > > > profitable anti-nuclear shows. You want some more examples? > > > > > > To put it straight: I have not studied chemistry, radiochemistry and > > have > > > not acquired a PHD in radiochemistry, worked for decades in this field > > to > > > be > > > told by a geoscientist, whose only credential seems to be a > > "whistleblower > > > acitivty", that I am an idiot. Anybody else on RADSAFE to feel like > > this? > > > > > > > > > Nice, that you distribute what you receive, but I still think that you > > > personally should be intellectually more able to distinguish between > > such > > > shit (sorry, I should have written s++t) and facts. > > > > > > > > > Norman, in spite of our very harsh controversies in the past I still > > > thought > > > that you might be able to sort out s--t from serious messages. > > > > > > Best wishes to you and your family, > > > > > > Franz > > > > > > Franz Schoenhofer > > > PhD, MR iR > > > Habicherg. 31/7 > > > A-1160 Vienna > > > AUSTRIA > > > phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Moderated by: Phil Egidi > pegidi@tenorm.com > http://www.tenorm.com > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/norm-tenorm/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > norm-tenorm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From andrewsjp at chartertn.net Mon Jun 6 03:22:21 2005 From: andrewsjp at chartertn.net (John Andrews) Date: Mon Jun 6 03:22:35 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIH research In-Reply-To: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE81F589@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> References: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE81F589@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: <42A3A54D.3060107@chartertn.net> Mercado, Don wrote: >James Salsman wrote: > >"In the _Military Medicine_, vol. 168, no. 8 (2003), pp. 600-605 article I cited a few minutes ago, the authors estimate an inhalation exposure of only about 0.34 mg in five symptomatic ("Gulf War Illness") patients, but I think they assumed a slower lung solubility than is really the case." > >5 patients with GWI symptoms sure doesn't seem like a good study pointing to DU causation of anything. > > >"Each 30 mm round of DU ordnance suspends on average about 60 grams of elemental uranium in the form of various oxides in the air." > >*Each* round, or those which hit something and burn? Every round that fires doesn't burn, some that do burn are buried in the ground and produce no "inhalable particles", etc. > > > >"Of the dust particles, about 18% are small enough to be absorbed right away. Some amount of gaseous UO3 vapor is also produced, but nobody knows exactly how much, yet: more will come from a round burning on a concave surface than a convex surface, for reasons of heat transfer. 30 mm DU ordnance is typically fired at about 20 rounds per second, from an Apache helicopter's gun, for instance. I have calculated that just two seconds of such firing can result in plumes which might result in multi-milligram inhalation exposures a kilometer away in a 6 km/h wind. Franz Sch?nhofer thinks my calculations were wrong somehow, but refuses to say why." > >I think Franz is right. There's so many holes in this argument, including "nobody knows exactly how much", it isn't funny. It isn't how much that is produced that's the problem, its how much dose is absorbed by a human that's important. And you STILL haven't answered the question of what dose the inhaled particles deliver. "Multi-milligram quantities a km away" mean nothing if there's no concentration figure. Take what multi-milligram quantity and spread it over 20 cubic km and you have nothing. > In addition, in my experience it is very hard to keep uranium particulates airborne. They seem to fall out of the air like rocks. I personally doubt that uranium particulate material is going to be transported for 1000 meters in a 6 km/hr breeze. John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee From jzummo at ucsd.edu Mon Jun 6 17:35:25 2005 From: jzummo at ucsd.edu (Zummo, John) Date: Mon Jun 6 17:35:35 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RSO position at UCSD Message-ID: <4504600800CA7F4F9B644C8F0D54F889022E163F@exehs.ucsd.edu> The Radiation Safety Officer position at the University of California, San Diego has been posted at: http://joblink.ucsd.edu/bulletin/job.html?cat=executive&job_id=36296 Anyone interested should apply before July 5 following the instructions on the website. Regards, John soon to be the retired UCSD RSO From john.gumnick at exeloncorp.com Mon Jun 6 18:01:59 2005 From: john.gumnick at exeloncorp.com (john.gumnick@exeloncorp.com) Date: Mon Jun 6 18:02:07 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Degreed HPs Needed Message-ID: Exelon Nuclear is currently seeking resumes for Health Physicists at our Midwest Plants. Four-year technical degrees are required, ABHP Certification preferred. Please forward your resume to me in Word or PDF format. Phone calls are not being accepted at this time. Thanks, JG > John Gumnick, CHP, NRRPT > Radiation Protection Health Physicist > Braidwood Generating Station > 35100 S Rte 53 Suite 84 > Braceville, IL 60407 > > Exelon > Nuclear > > *: 815-417-2244 *: Tie line 8-293-2244 > Fax: 815-417-2410 > ** john.gumnick@exeloncorp.com > > > ************************************************************************ This e-mail and any of its attachments may contain Exelon Corporation proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to the Exelon Corporation family of Companies. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. Thank You. ************************************************************************ From daitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Mon Jun 6 18:36:08 2005 From: daitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Mon Jun 6 18:37:36 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proximity to Power Lines (and/or DU Voodoo....) In-Reply-To: <8C7AD67141A06D499823B280003E6C020150CC31@svits11.main.ad.r it.edu> References: <8C7AD67141A06D499823B280003E6C020150CC31@svits11.main.ad.rit.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20050606111826.029a3b30@pop.nam.slb.com> At 12:47 PM 6/3/2005, A Karam wrote: >Anyone interested in this topic should read the book "Voodoo Science" by >Robert Park. Is it fair to say that many of the claims on the physical effects of DU might fall in the same realm? It worries me that some of the pronouncements on this list might later be taken as factual, when they have been made by an ardent supporter of these negative effects, who selectively quotes from many sources to bolster his case.......... I have no axe to grind in this topic (and certainly do not have the professional training or qualifications to enter into the discussion!), but look to Radsafe to be a useful source of information (and fully understand that even between professionals, there can be differences of opinion........) Doug Doug Aitken Schlumberger D&M QHSE Advisor Office (rarely!) 281-285-8009 Home (better!) 713-797-0919 Cell (best?) 713-562-8585 From blc+ at pitt.edu Mon Jun 6 19:48:59 2005 From: blc+ at pitt.edu (Bernard Cohen) Date: Mon Jun 6 19:42:37 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indoor Radon In-Reply-To: <6640A27C183D584997B243765F1C71C8168C5A@tenhdcthemx06.tenethealth.net> References: <6640A27C183D584997B243765F1C71C8168C5A@tenhdcthemx06.tenethealth.net> Message-ID: <42A48C8B.6010605@pitt.edu> Glennon, Patrick wrote: >I think we would benefit more by looking at the larger picture. That picture is that even using the EPA's numbers the proper response to indoor radon is ---"Big Deal, So What." > ---According to EPA and NCRP numbers, the average American gets about 200 mrem per year of whole body equivalent dose exposure from radon in homes. This is 100 times more exposure than anyone claims he will get from nuclear power. but fear of radiation from nuclear power is costing us dearly. It is at least 100 times more radiation than anyone claims anyone will get from the Hanford operations, but we are spending $50-60 billion to reduce that risk. I could give a lot of similar examples. I always viewed the radon problem as a potentially powerful tool for bringing the public to its senses about the dangers of radiation From krzesniak at atd.crane.navy.mil Mon Jun 6 20:10:06 2005 From: krzesniak at atd.crane.navy.mil (Krzesniak, Michael F) Date: Mon Jun 6 20:11:39 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] krypton-85 US licensee Message-ID: <692B25930E01EB408D5BFA351792391D8BB810@atd.crane.navy.mil> I made a similar post in 1998. Can anyone please tell me known sources licensed in the US to handle Kr85. thank you Michael Krzesniak Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane) Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter Code 6054 Bldg. 3059 300 Highway 361 Crane, IN 47522-5001 Ph: 812.854.6086 Fax: 812.854.3008 Email: krzesniak@atd.crane.navy.mil From syd.levine at mindspring.com Mon Jun 6 20:37:33 2005 From: syd.levine at mindspring.com (Syd H. Levine) Date: Mon Jun 6 20:37:50 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] krypton-85 US licensee References: <692B25930E01EB408D5BFA351792391D8BB810@atd.crane.navy.mil> Message-ID: <01c501c56ac6$cfd6d900$f300a8c0@Shop> There is a neon lamp plant in Oklahoma that is licensed. It may belong to Chicago Miniature, but it has been years since I talked to anyone there. Syd H. Levine AnaLog Services, Inc. Phone: 270-276-5671 Telefax: 270-276-5588 E-mail: analog@logwell.com URL: www.logwell.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Krzesniak, Michael F" To: Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 1:10 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] krypton-85 US licensee >I made a similar post in 1998. Can anyone please tell me known sources > licensed in the US to handle Kr85. > > thank you > > Michael Krzesniak > Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane) > Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter > Code 6054 Bldg. 3059 > 300 Highway 361 > Crane, IN 47522-5001 > Ph: 812.854.6086 > Fax: 812.854.3008 > Email: krzesniak@atd.crane.navy.mil > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From maurysis at ev1.net Tue Jun 7 05:43:13 2005 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Tue Jun 7 05:41:46 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Long ago, but Man is still at it .... Message-ID: <42A517D1.1070400@ev1.net> SIXTY ONE YEARS Maury&Dog (MaurySiskel maurysis@ev1.net) From M.Schouwenburg at TNW.TUDelft.NL Tue Jun 7 16:21:17 2005 From: M.Schouwenburg at TNW.TUDelft.NL (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Tue Jun 7 16:10:05 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Job Posting: Radiological Instructors (3 positions) Message-ID: <42A5AD5D.4060202@TNW.TUDelft.NL> Job Posting Posted on behalf of: Bechtel Nevada, prime contractor to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. If you're interested in this position, please do NOT reply to the list or me. Use the contact information as mentioned below and in the attached pdf-file containing the full job description. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bechtel Nevada, prime contractor to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, has immediate openings for three radiological instructor positions to perform platform and field instruction in a performance-based instructional environment to support the Counter Terrorism Operations Support (CTOS) Program in delivery of training. Send resume to Bechtel Nevada, Attn: Denise Alvarado (identify job #75-05), P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, alvaradm@nv.doe.gov, or FAX 702-295-2448. Equal Opportunity Employer. Pre-placement physical examination, which includes a drug screen, is required. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marcel Schouwenburg - RadSafe moderator & List owner Head Training Centre Delft National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV) Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft Delft University of Technology Mekelweg 15 NL - 2629 JB DELFT The Netherlands Phone +31 (0)15 27 86575 Fax +31 (0)15 27 81717 email m.schouwenburg@tnw.tudelft.nl -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 105145-46ad.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 104540 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/attachments/20050607/a151cee6/105145-46ad-0001.pdf From bobcherry at cox.net Tue Jun 7 16:18:17 2005 From: bobcherry at cox.net (bobcherry@cox.net) Date: Tue Jun 7 16:32:47 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Job Posting: Sr Health Physicist and Health Physicist (2positions) Message-ID: <20050607141817.FMHM18229.lakermmtao03.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> Dade Moeller & Associates Dade Moeller & Associates, a small business consulting firm, is seeking qualified candidates for the following positions in our Fairfax, VA office. Information on Dade Moeller & Associates is available online at www.moellerinc.com. Senior Health Physicist: Full-time position requires a BS in a science or engineering field with a minimum of 10 years professional experience as a health physicist. Advanced degrees in a science field related to ESH&Q, professional certification in health physics, proven management skills, applied experience in the DOE complex with a focus on environmental radiation protection, and/or experience with the DOE NEPA process preferred. Job tasks include managing tasks or projects, developing guidance, analyzing records, estimating radiation doses, performing assessments, and reviewing and preparing reports. Health Physicist: Full-time position requires a BS in a science or engineering field plus 5 years of health physics-related experience. Applied environmental health physics experience in the DOE complex and an understanding of the DOE NEPA process preferred. Job tasks include managing tasks, developing guidance, analyzing records, estimating radiation doses, performing assessments, and reviewing and preparing reports. Send resume and cover letter with salary history and expectations electronically to jobs@moellerinc.com. We are an equal opportunity employer. Minority candidates are encouraged to apply. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 105145-46ad.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 104540 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/attachments/20050607/6af82ce7/105145-46ad-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From bobcherry at cox.net Tue Jun 7 16:38:44 2005 From: bobcherry at cox.net (bobcherry@cox.net) Date: Tue Jun 7 16:38:58 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Job Announcements: Sr HP and HP (2 Positions) Message-ID: <20050607143844.XAIJ13442.lakermmtao05.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> I think something went wrong with my first attempt to post this. I apologize if you get this information twice. Bob C ------------ Dade Moeller & Associates Dade Moeller & Associates, a small business consulting firm, is seeking qualified candidates for the following positions in our Fairfax, VA office. Information on Dade Moeller & Associates is available online at www.moellerinc.com. Senior Health Physicist: Full-time position requires a BS in a science or engineering field with a minimum of 10 years professional experience as a health physicist. Advanced degrees in a science field related to ESH&Q, professional certification in health physics, proven management skills, applied experience in the DOE complex with a focus on environmental radiation protection, and/or experience with the DOE NEPA process preferred. Job tasks include managing tasks or projects, developing guidance, analyzing records, estimating radiation doses, performing assessments, and reviewing and preparing reports. Health Physicist: Full-time position requires a BS in a science or engineering field plus 5 years of health physics-related experience. Applied environmental health physics experience in the DOE complex and an understanding of the DOE NEPA process preferred. Job tasks include managing tasks, developing guidance, analyzing records, estimating radiation doses, performing assessments, and reviewing and preparing reports. Send resume and cover letter with salary history and expectations electronically to jobs@moellerinc.com. We are an equal opportunity employer. Minority candidates are encouraged to apply. From wattsa at ohio.edu Tue Jun 7 17:28:07 2005 From: wattsa at ohio.edu (Alan Watts) Date: Tue Jun 7 17:29:09 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] krypton-85 US licensee In-Reply-To: <692B25930E01EB408D5BFA351792391D8BB810@atd.crane.navy.mil> References: <692B25930E01EB408D5BFA351792391D8BB810@atd.crane.navy.mil> Message-ID: <249112093.1118143687@dhcp-110-041.cns.ohiou.edu> try: TSI Inc Particle Instruments Division 500 Cardigan Rd St Paul, MN 55164 651 490 2833 particle@tsi.com Alan Alan Watts RSO Ohio University wattsa@ohio.edu --On Monday, June 06, 2005 1:10 PM -0500 "Krzesniak, Michael F" wrote: > I made a similar post in 1998. Can anyone please tell me known sources > licensed in the US to handle Kr85. > > thank you > > Michael Krzesniak > Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane) > Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter > Code 6054 Bldg. 3059 > 300 Highway 361 > Crane, IN 47522-5001 > Ph: 812.854.6086 > Fax: 812.854.3008 > Email: krzesniak@atd.crane.navy.mil > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From don.mercado at lmco.com Tue Jun 7 20:58:47 2005 From: don.mercado at lmco.com (Mercado, Don) Date: Tue Jun 7 20:58:55 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIHresearch Message-ID: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE81F58D@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> James Salsman wrote: "Right, each round has about 280 grams of metallic uranium, so based on the percentage that burn when fired at a hard target" Do you mean "fired at a hard target" or "striking a hard target"? Simply bec a round is fired from a gun doesn't mean it burns. How did you figure the percentage that burn? "Even if you ignore uranium trioxide, which everyone except Salbu et al. last year has, then you still get multimiligram resperable quantities of U3O8 and UO2 dust at least 1200 meters downwind, even in a fairly strong wind: Mitsakou, et al., "Modeling the Dispersion of Depleted Uranium Aerosol," Health Physics, vol. 84, no. 4 (2003), pp. 538-544: http://www.bovik.org/du/aerosol.pdf" I'm not sure where the "multimilligram respirable quantities" you are talking about come from, but if you look at Figure 3 of the report, they're talking about <1 X 10E-6 Bq/m^2 for even the closest distances from the fire. The studues they quote on particle sizes indicate fires cause particles between 1 and 10 microns. No mention of "nanoparticles". From james.g.barnes at att.net Tue Jun 7 21:46:27 2005 From: james.g.barnes at att.net (james.g.barnes@att.net) Date: Tue Jun 7 21:45:13 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: New finding: another way toxins cause "hereditary" diseases Message-ID: <060720051946.6169.42A5F992000D88180000181921602807419C0A029D0E0DD209D29C0A030E06@att.net> Dear all; This was forwarded to me by an IH colleague. While it's not directly a radiation study, it is something we probably should start thinking about. Jim Barnes, CHP =================================== SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/227013_toxics03.html Startling study on toxins' harm WSU findings show that disorders can be passed on without genetic mutations Friday, June 3, 2005 By TOM PAULSON SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER It's just a study involving a few rats with fertility problems in Pullman, but the findings could lead to fundamental changes in how we look at environmental toxins, cancer, heritable diseases, genetics and the basics of evolutionary biology. If a pregnant woman is exposed to a pesticide at the wrong time, the study suggests, her children, grandchildren and the rest of her descendants could inherit the damage and diseases caused by the toxin -- even if it doesn't involve a genetic mutation. "As so often happens in science, we just stumbled onto this," said Dr. Michael Skinner, director of the center for reproductive biology at Washington State University. Skinner's team at WSU and colleagues from several other universities report in today's Science magazine on what they believe is the first demonstration and explanation of how a toxin-induced disorder in a pregnant female can be passed on to children and succeeding generations without changes in her genetic code, or DNA. "We were quite surprised ... we've been sitting on this for a few years," said Skinner, who is expected to present his findings today at a scientific meeting in San Diego. The report in Science, entitled "Epigenetic Transgenerational Actions of Endocrine Disruptors and Male Fertility," also sounds like an attempt to avoid attention. That's unlikely to work. The findings prompt serious and, in some cases, disturbing questions about a number of basic assumptions in biology. The standard view of heritable disease is that for any disorder or disease to be inherited, a gene must go bad (mutate) and that gene must get passed on to the offspring. What Skinner and his colleagues did is show that exposing a pregnant rat to high doses of a class of pesticides known as "endocrine disruptors" causes an inherited reproductive disorder in male rats that is passed on without any genetic mutation. It's not genetic change; it's an "epigenetic" change. Epigenetics is a relatively new field of science that refers to modifying DNA without mutations in the genes. "It's not a change in the DNA sequence," Skinner explained. "It's a chemical modification of the DNA." Scientists have known for years about these changes to DNA that can modify genes' behavior without directly altering them. One form of epigenetic change is natural. Every cell in the body contains the entire genetic code. But brain cells must use only the genes needed in the brain, for example, and kidney cells should activate only the genes needed for renal function. Cells commonly switch on and off gene behavior by attaching small molecules known as methyl groups to specific sections of DNA. The attachment and detachment of methyl groups is also an important process in fetal development of the male testes and female ovaries -- which is where Skinner got started on this. But the common wisdom has been that any artificially induced epigenetic modifications will remain as an isolated change in an individual. Because no genes get altered, the changes cannot be passed on. "We showed that they can be," Skinner said. The experiment got its start four years ago by accident. His lab was studying testes development in fetal rats, using a fungicide used in vineyards (vinclozin) and a common pesticide (methoxychlor) to disrupt the process. A researcher inadvertently allowed two of the exposed rats to breed, so the scientists figured they'd just see what happened. The male in the breeding pair was born with a low sperm count and other disorders because of the mother's exposure to toxins. No surprise. But the male offspring of the pair also had these problems, as did the next two generations of male rats. "I couldn't explain it," Skinner. This wasn't supposed to happen. The scientists didn't tell anyone about their finding and continued, for the next two years, to confirm that it was real and to find an explanation. Eventually, they documented that a toxin-induced attachment of methyl groups to DNA in the mother rat was being passed on to offspring. "In human terms, this would mean if your great grandmother was exposed to an environmental toxin at a critical point in her pregnancy, you may have inherited the disease," Skinner said. While the study was focused on a heritable disorder of reproduction in rats, he said there's every reason to believe this can happen for other diseases -- such as cancer. "There has been this speculation that the increased rates of some cancers may be due to environmental factors, but they've never been able to describe a mechanism to explain this," Skinner said. The findings also suggest a reconsideration of one of the basic tenets of evolutionary biology -- that evolution proceeds by random genetic change. The standard view is that the environment has no direct influence, except in how it may favor or discriminate against the creatures with the latest genetic mutations. The WSU study, Skinner said, suggests the possibility that environmental factors such as toxins may also directly cause heritable changes in creatures. "Epigenetics may be just as important as genetics in evolution," he said. P-I reporter Tom Paulson can be reached at 206-448-8318 or tompaulson@seattlepi.com Š 1998-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer From james at bovik.org Wed Jun 8 00:42:17 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Wed Jun 8 00:42:36 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten Alloy Munitions Pose Unforeseen Threat -NIHresearch In-Reply-To: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE81F58D@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> References: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE81F58D@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: <42A622C9.5030809@bovik.org> Don Mercado wrote: > James Salsman wrote: > > "Right, each round has about 280 grams of metallic uranium, so based on > the percentage that burn when fired at a hard target" > > Do you mean "fired at a hard target" or "striking a hard target"? Simply > because a round is fired from a gun doesn't mean it burns. How did you > figure the percentage that burn? You are right: my figure is high. According to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm the average number of 20-30mm rounds fired which hit their target is about 10%, and of those only about 40% of the metal in the incendiary rounds burn. So, assuming that only 4% of the uranium burns, that makes 12 released grams of elemental uranium per round. This assumes that only the rounds which strike the target burn at all, which is probably very conservative. Roads are hard enough to ignite the rounds, although sand isn't. > "Even if you ignore uranium trioxide, which everyone except Salbu et al. > last year has, then you still get multimiligram resperable quantities of > U3O8 and UO2 dust at least 1200 meters downwind, even in a fairly strong > wind: Mitsakou, et al., "Modeling the Dispersion of Depleted Uranium > Aerosol," Health Physics, vol. 84, no. 4 (2003), pp. 538-544: > http://www.bovik.org/du/aerosol.pdf " > > I'm not sure where the "multimilligram respirable quantities" you are > talking about come from, but if you look at Figure 3 of the report, > they're talking about <1 X 10E-6 Bq/m^2 for even the closest distances > from the fire. Figure 3 shows concentrations at distances 10 km and 100 km; you are referring to Figure 2. They both show depositions on the ground from only a 1 Bq release. Since the specific activity of DU is 12500 Bq/g, the 20-round, two-second firing I've been talking about would involve a release of 3 MBq based on 12 g/round, or, from Figure 3, 0.18 Bq/m^3 at a distance of 10 km after half an hour in an 11 mile/hour wind. If the air concentrations are proportional to the deposition rates shown in Figure 2, that's still about a milligram of elemental uranium every 220 four-liter breaths at a kilometer away in the same wind. >... The studues they quote on particle sizes indicate fires > cause particles between 1 and 10 microns. No mention of "nanoparticles". The tremendous divergence of particle size ranges from various publications is a clear indication that the science in this area is tremendously flawed. Elder and Tinkle (1980), quoted in that report, claim that the median particle size was ten microns, with a standard deviation of only 1.7. About 18% of the particles are indicated as less than 0.1 micron wide in J. Glissmeyer et al., "Prototype Firing Range Air Cleaning System," from the Proceedings of the 18th D.o.E. Nuclear Airborne Waste Management and Air Cleaning Conference (August 1984.) Sincerely, James Salsman From eic at shaw.ca Wed Jun 8 02:43:14 2005 From: eic at shaw.ca (Kai Kaletsch) Date: Wed Jun 8 02:43:20 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Thorium mineral ALI References: <692B25930E01EB408D5BFA351792391D8BB810@atd.crane.navy.mil> <249112093.1118143687@dhcp-110-041.cns.ohiou.edu> Message-ID: <01d101c56bc3$0e2c82c0$0200a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Friends, I am looking for a default inhalation ALI value to use for natural Thorium in equilibrium with its progeny as it occurs in ores. One could calculate a value from the values published in ICRP 61, but I was hoping someone had looked at more realistic size distributions that would occur in earth moving type applications. Thanks in advance, Kai Kai Kaletsch Environmental Instruments Canada Inc. From Nick.Tsurikov at iluka.com Wed Jun 8 09:30:13 2005 From: Nick.Tsurikov at iluka.com (Tsurikov, Nick) Date: Wed Jun 8 09:30:35 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Thorium mineral ALI Message-ID: Dear Kai, The dose conversion factors used in the West Australian mineral sands industry, depending on Activity Median Aerodynamic Diameter (AMAD): 1 micron AMAD = 0.0130 mSv/Bq (used for members of the public); 5 micron AMAD = 0.0097 mSv/Bq (default value); 10 micro AMAD = 0.0057 mSv/Bq (if a pre-set number of valid personal impactor samples in the monitoring period indicates that this is the case). >From here you can easily estimate what the ALI would be. Please contact me direct if you need any additional information. Kind regards Nick Tsurikov Eneabba, Western Australia -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Kai Kaletsch Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2005 8:43 AM To: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Thorium mineral ALI Friends, I am looking for a default inhalation ALI value to use for natural Thorium in equilibrium with its progeny as it occurs in ores. One could calculate a value from the values published in ICRP 61, but I was hoping someone had looked at more realistic size distributions that would occur in earth moving type applications. Thanks in advance, Kai Kai Kaletsch Environmental Instruments Canada Inc. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ NOTICE - Mail attachments have been compressed automatically and appear as .ZIP files. Should you be unable to access compressed attachments free compression software (e.g FreeZip) is readily available from the Internet. This message and any attached files may contain information that is confidential and/or subject of legal privileged intended only for use by the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error and that any dissemination, copying or use of this message or attachment is strictly forbidden, as is the disclosure of the information therein. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. All care has been taken to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. No responsibility is accepted for any virus infections caused by receipt of this message. From maurysis at ev1.net Thu Jun 9 04:06:19 2005 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Thu Jun 9 04:05:01 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Germany & Nuclear Power Message-ID: <42A7A41B.4010303@ev1.net> When she becomes Chancellor, Angela Merkel will retake Germany from the so-called Greens and at least become friendly again with the West. And nuclear power will be preserved, if not expanded at last, in Germany. Nice to see one for the white hats for a change. Cheers, Maury&Dog (MaurySiskel maurysis@ev1.net) =========== German Utilities May Run Nuclear Power Plants Longer Under CDU June 8 (Bloomberg) -- Germany's four power-plant operators, including E.ON AG and RWE AG, would be allowed to run their nuclear power stations longer under a possible government led by the Christian Democratic Union, party head Angela Merkel said. The CDU would allow utilities to run their nuclear power stations as long as it's technically possible and safe, Merkel said, speaking at a power industry conference in Berlin today. The move would mean scrapping legislation from the governing coalition of the Social Democrats and the Green Party, aimed at phasing out nuclear power in Europe's largest power market in about 20 years. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is seeking a general election on Sept. 18, a year ahead of schedule. Polls show the CDU- led opposition has a lead over the governing parties. E.ON could earn 4.6 billion euros ($5.7 billion) more and RWE 3.4 billion euros, if they were allowed to operate their nuclear plants for 45 years instead of 32 years, Handelsblatt newspaper reported on June 6, citing analysts at Sal Oppenheim. Peter Dinkloh in Frankfurt at pdinkloh@bloomberg.net. _____________ A little added perspective from Strategic Forecasting 8 JUN 05: "... But before one gets too enamored of the idea of a pro-American Germany, bear in mind the place makes the person. Merkel's personal history constitutes a leading factor explaining her Atlanticism. Once she becomes chancellor -- which she probably will -- she will be speaking for all of Germany, not just East Germany. East Germany was an occupied corner of Europe seeking to escape Soviet domination. As such, East Germans view themselves as needing an external partner for protection. Germany proper, however, has no need of protection as it occupies a rather benign security environment and boasts Europe's largest economy and population. Emerging from occupation, it is now attempting to carve out a niche for itself in a changing world. A Chancellor Merkel will face harsh resistance from a country experiencing its own internal geopolitical split. It is not an entity that will reflexively seek to subordinate its political and security desires to dictation from an entity on the other side of the Atlantic -- no matter what the personal preferences of its leader. ..." From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jun 9 14:13:34 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu Jun 9 14:13:44 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Germany & Nuclear Power In-Reply-To: <42A7A41B.4010303@ev1.net> Message-ID: <20050609121334.26083.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> Unless, of course, the government again changes. The only thing permanent is change. --- Maury Siskel wrote: > When she becomes Chancellor, Angela Merkel will > retake Germany from the > so-called Greens and at least become friendly again > with the West. And > nuclear power will be preserved, if not expanded at > last, in Germany. > Nice to see one for the white hats for a change. > Cheers, > Maury&Dog (MaurySiskel maurysis@ev1.net) > > =========== > German Utilities May Run Nuclear Power Plants Longer > Under CDU > > June 8 (Bloomberg) -- Germany's four power-plant > operators, including > E.ON AG and RWE AG, would be allowed to run their > nuclear power stations > longer under a possible government led by the > Christian Democratic > Union, party head Angela Merkel said. > > The CDU would allow utilities to run their nuclear > power stations as > long as it's technically possible and safe, Merkel > said, speaking at a > power industry conference in Berlin today. > > The move would mean scrapping legislation from the > governing coalition > of the Social Democrats and the Green Party, aimed > at phasing out > nuclear power in Europe's largest power market in > about 20 years. > Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is seeking a general > election on Sept. 18, > a year ahead of schedule. Polls show the CDU- led > opposition has a lead > over the governing parties. > > E.ON could earn 4.6 billion euros ($5.7 billion) > more and RWE 3.4 > billion euros, if they were allowed to operate their > nuclear plants for > 45 years instead of 32 years, Handelsblatt newspaper > reported on June 6, > citing analysts at Sal Oppenheim. > > Peter Dinkloh in Frankfurt at > pdinkloh@bloomberg.net. > _____________ > A little added perspective from Strategic > Forecasting 8 JUN 05: > > "... But before one gets too enamored of the idea of > a pro-American > Germany, bear in mind the place makes the person. > Merkel's personal > history constitutes a leading factor explaining her > Atlanticism. Once > she becomes chancellor -- which she probably will -- > she will be > speaking for all of Germany, not just East Germany. > > East Germany was an occupied corner of Europe > seeking to escape Soviet > domination. As such, East Germans view themselves as > needing an external > partner for protection. > > Germany proper, however, has no need of protection > as it occupies a > rather benign security environment and boasts > Europe's largest economy > and population. Emerging from occupation, it is now > attempting to carve > out a niche for itself in a changing world. > > A Chancellor Merkel will face harsh resistance from > a country > experiencing its own internal geopolitical split. It > is not an entity > that will reflexively seek to subordinate its > political and security > desires to dictation from an entity on the other > side of the Atlantic -- > no matter what the personal preferences of its > leader. ..." > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing > list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have > read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be > found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe > and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From maurysis at ev1.net Thu Jun 9 14:27:30 2005 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Thu Jun 9 14:27:54 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Germany & Nuclear Power In-Reply-To: <20050609121334.26083.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050609121334.26083.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42A835B2.2000900@ev1.net> Certainly true ... sorta' leaves us firmly planted in quicksand Maury&Dog ========================= John Jacobus wrote: >Unless, of course, the government again changes. The >only thing permanent is change. > >--- Maury Siskel wrote: > > > >>When she becomes Chancellor, Angela Merkel will retake Germany from the >>so-called Greens and at least become friendly again with the West. And >>nuclear power will be preserved, if not expanded at last, in Germany. Nice to see one for the white hats for a change. >>Cheers, >>Maury&Dog (MaurySiskel maurysis@ev1.net) >> >> =========== >>German Utilities May Run Nuclear Power Plants Longer >>Under CDU >> >>June 8 (Bloomberg) -- Germany's four power-plant operators, including >>E.ON AG and RWE AG, would be allowed to run their nuclear power stations >>longer under a possible government led by ------------snipped ----- >>reported on June 6, citing analysts at Sal Oppenheim. >> >>Peter Dinkloh in Frankfurt at >>pdinkloh@bloomberg.net. >>_____________ >>A little added perspective from Strategic >>Forecasting 8 JUN 05: >> >>"... But before one gets too enamored of the idea of a pro-American >>Germany, bear in mind the place makes the person >> ------------- snipped ----------- From bobcherry at cox.net Thu Jun 9 18:40:47 2005 From: bobcherry at cox.net (bobcherry@cox.net) Date: Thu Jun 9 18:40:59 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Letter to the Muskegon Chronicle Message-ID: <20050609164047.FHUS26223.lakermmtao02.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> FYI, in response to the following editorial: http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-0/111824191095790.xml entitled, "Are soldiers told the truth about ammo risks?" I wrote the following: ------------ Dear Editor: I am writing about your editorial on Tuesday, June 7, entitled ?Are soldiers told the truth about ammo risks?? I read it on MLive.com while keeping up with Michigan news. I grew up in Michigan and went to the University of Michigan for my three degrees, including my doctorate in physics. I am a certified health physicist. I was drafted into the Army in 1969. I served in combat in Vietnam. I retired from the Army as a colonel in 2001. In the latter part of my career, I was one of the people whose truthfulness you are questioning. If you did any research beyond listening to what the antiwar activists, antinuclear activists, and anti-depleted uranium (DU) activists are spouting, you would easily determine that virtually all of their claims are bogus and that the Department of Defense is telling the truth about DU to its soldiers, sailors, and airmen. (Not that anything is wrong with being an activist!) Maybe, to you, DOD is a monolith harboring many conspiracies, but, to me, DOD employs dedicated military and civilian men and women devoted to the defense of our country and the welfare of those fighting for all of us. To answer your editorial question, DOD is telling the truth to its fighting men and women. The activists are not. To help you get started on your research, ask some folks in the Nuclear Engineering Department at the University of Michigan (for example, Dr. Kearfott) or UM?s Radiation Safety Service (for example, Dr. Mark Driscoll) for an educated opinion on the potential biological effects of DU. Don?t take my word for it, although you seem to take the word of activists on this issue. Consider other environmental aspects, such as native insects, heat, and personal hygiene, of service in Iraq and Afghanistan for the causes of the alleged health effects of our soldiers before you blame DU for everything. Determine whether many of the alleged health effects were pre-existing or would have occurred regardless of service in an overseas theater. Determine whether it is even plausible that DU can cause these effects (that is, determine the mechanism). DU can not and does not cause the wide variety of ailments collectively termed Gulf War Syndrome, even for much larger amounts than our soldiers are exposed to. Many reliable and responsible experts with no connection to DOD have said so. Many people in DOD are working hard to inform our fighting men and women about DU, a large part in response to careless editorials such as yours. Their efforts would be better spent in addressing real hazards of serving in a combat area far from home, but it is very important to assure our soldiers that DU is a superb weapon and shield. It saves American lives, because it defeats the enemy at long range with efficiency. It saves enemy lives, because they surrender sooner. It hurts no one unless we fire it at you or you drop it on your foot. I learned in my journalism classes years ago to research before I wrote. Has journalism changed so much since then? Robert N. Cherry, Jr., Ph.D. Certified Health Physicist Colonel, U.S. Army (retired) ----------------------------------- From james at bovik.org Thu Jun 9 22:07:33 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Thu Jun 9 22:07:54 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Letter to the Muskegon Chronicle Message-ID: <42A8A185.1010309@bovik.org> Robert N. Cherry, Jr., wrote in a Letter to the Editor of the Muskegon Chronicle: >... To help you get started on your research, ask some folks > in the Nuclear Engineering Department at the University > of Michigan (for example, Dr. Kearfott) or UM?s Radiation > Safety Service (for example, Dr. Mark Driscoll) for an > educated opinion on the potential biological effects of DU. The chemical toxicity resulting from depleted uranium inhalation exposure is several orders of magnitude more hazardous than its radiological effects, so I recommend that you also contact a toxicologist familiar with heavy metal catalytic damage to DNA, and show them these publications from the peer-reviewed medical literature: http://www.bovik.org/du/Miller-DNA-damage.pdf http://www.bovik.org/du/chromosome-abberations.pdf http://www.bovik.org/du/devtox-mice.pdf http://www.bovik.org/du/du-on-rats.pdf http://www.bovik.org/du/inhalation-est.pdf * http://www.bovik.org/du/5_Durakovic.pdf * http://www.bovik.org/du/4_Durakovic.pdf * http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/74 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12854660&dopt=Abstract * I especially recommend the publications by Asaf Durakovic, M.D., a former colleague of Dr. Cherry, and also a retired Army Colonel, but a medical doctor with toxicology training who commanded a Medical Detachment Unit in the first Gulf War, serving as a Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine and the Chief of the Nuclear Medicine Service at the Wilmington, DE Veteran's Administration Medical Center, who was fired in 1997 after speaking out against the dangers of DU inhalation. Dr. Cherry is not a medical doctor, but was merely a Radiation Safety Officer and Health Physicist, and as such has no training in reproductive toxicology or heavy metal toxicity. The Army assigned him in 2000 to reply to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission petition on DU munitions from Doug Rokke, another Army officer who was fired after speaking out against the dangers of depleted uranium, so it is unsurprising that Dr. Cherry ignores depleted uranium's heavy metal toxicity and catalytic chromosome damage, focusing on its minor radiological hazard instead. And that certainly proves that the Muskegon Chronicle was correct in questioning the truthfulness of Dr. Cherry and his superiors. Sincerely, James Salsman Mountain View, CA From bobcherry at cox.net Thu Jun 9 22:58:56 2005 From: bobcherry at cox.net (bobcherry@cox.net) Date: Thu Jun 9 22:59:07 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Letter to the Muskegon Chronicle] Message-ID: <20050609205854.VYVJ18139.lakermmtao08.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> Ah, me! Mr. Salsman is correct to point out that I "have no training in reproductive toxicology or heavy metal toxicity" and that I am not a "medical doctor." Of course, I have never made such claims. (And, ironically, the activists accuse me of ad hominen attacks.) However, I have a great deal of training and experience in BS detection and I detect a lot of it from him. The Army did not assign me "in 2000 to reply to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission petition on DU munitions." As Army Radiation Safety Officer at Headquarters, Department of the Army, it was my duty to do so. No one assigned me. Under my own authority and responsibility, I "assigned" myself. Dr. Durakovic is not a retired Army colonel. He was on active duty for a while. He may still be a reserve colonel, but he does not have enough service credit for retirement as far as I know. In his short tirade, Salsman made some other mistakes, but I have listed enough for you to get the gist. Again, someone is spouting activists' propaganda and writing about research but not doing it himself. "Merely" Bob, but that is enough for me PS. This is the last Radsafe will hear from me on this thread unless it is to report publication of my letter, but I will watch Radsafe with interest for what happens next. > > From: James Salsman > Date: 2005/06/09 Thu PM 04:07:33 EDT > To: gcarlson@muskegonchronicle.com, pholmes@muskegonchronicle.com, > dkolb@muskegonchronicle.com > CC: radsafe@radlab.nl, bobcherry@cox.net > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Letter to the Muskegon Chronicle > > Robert N. Cherry, Jr., wrote in a Letter to the Editor > of the Muskegon Chronicle: > > >... To help you get started on your research, ask some folks > > in the Nuclear Engineering Department at the University > > of Michigan (for example, Dr. Kearfott) or UM?s Radiation > > Safety Service (for example, Dr. Mark Driscoll) for an > > educated opinion on the potential biological effects of DU. > > The chemical toxicity resulting from depleted uranium > inhalation exposure is several orders of magnitude more > hazardous than its radiological effects, so I recommend > that you also contact a toxicologist familiar with heavy > metal catalytic damage to DNA, and show them these > publications from the peer-reviewed medical literature: > > http://www.bovik.org/du/Miller-DNA-damage.pdf > http://www.bovik.org/du/chromosome-abberations.pdf > http://www.bovik.org/du/devtox-mice.pdf > http://www.bovik.org/du/du-on-rats.pdf > http://www.bovik.org/du/inhalation-est.pdf * > http://www.bovik.org/du/5_Durakovic.pdf * > http://www.bovik.org/du/4_Durakovic.pdf * > http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/74 > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12854660&dopt=Abstract > > * I especially recommend the publications by Asaf Durakovic, > M.D., a former colleague of Dr. Cherry, and also a retired Army > Colonel, but a medical doctor with toxicology training who > commanded a Medical Detachment Unit in the first Gulf War, > serving as a Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine and > the Chief of the Nuclear Medicine Service at the Wilmington, DE > Veteran's Administration Medical Center, who was fired in 1997 > after speaking out against the dangers of DU inhalation. > > Dr. Cherry is not a medical doctor, but was merely a Radiation > Safety Officer and Health Physicist, and as such has no training > in reproductive toxicology or heavy metal toxicity. The Army > assigned him in 2000 to reply to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission > petition on DU munitions from Doug Rokke, another Army officer > who was fired after speaking out against the dangers of depleted > uranium, so it is unsurprising that Dr. Cherry ignores depleted > uranium's heavy metal toxicity and catalytic chromosome damage, > focusing on its minor radiological hazard instead. > > And that certainly proves that the Muskegon Chronicle was correct > in questioning the truthfulness of Dr. Cherry and his superiors. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > Mountain View, CA > > > From radmax at earthlink.net Fri Jun 10 04:18:07 2005 From: radmax at earthlink.net (Richard D. Urban Jr.) Date: Fri Jun 10 04:18:25 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: James Salsman on the Letter Message-ID: <30507690.1118369887266.JavaMail.root@wamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> James Salsman wrote... >"The chemical toxicity resulting from depleted uranium inhalation exposure"... bla, bla, bla... Is much higher than the radiological consequences. This has never been disputed by anyone, least of all the US Army. What has been disputed is, is it a.) worse than U nat, or indeed any other heavy metal poisoning, and b.) what are the mitigating (other chemical or biological exposures) and latency issues prior to those DU consequences surfacing, if indeed they ever do? I certainly would prefer DU to certain other things, such as say instantaneous LEAD poisoning from a bullet (Sadam's way of handling dissent). Compare it to chemo-radiation therapy side effects vs. certain death from breast cancer. The former is not pretty (ask my wife), but its sure a hell of a lot better than the latter. As for the original article, I have seen the Army training, and it is as sufficient and comprehensive as any other worker training regarding various workplace hazards, such as lead and asbestos... "This is what it is, this is what it can do to you, monitor for it, don't handle it, clean yourself up after being exposed to it, if you suspect it or have been exposed report it to the proper authorities." This is the same type of thing industrial workers get for any hazardous substance (OSHA HAZWOPPR). Why should it be different here? We don't let pipefitters go in to decontaminate a reactor cavity in a powerplant, rail engineers to clean up a derailed chlorine tanker, the same holds true for the Army. Specific training, protective wear and preparations are made for responses by "specialist's". As for "Dr. Cherry... was "merely" a Radiation Safety Officer and Health Physicist"... I can't possibly imagine how you would want to insult probably 75% plus of this community... MERELY an RSO and HP, WELL!!!... First, Doug Rokke hasn't even a tenth the specialized training and education Bob Cherry has, does not hold a degree in ANY health related field, and IS NOT a "Health Physicist", but yet his word is as 'Biblical' to you? From all OFFICIAL accounts, he was a 'merely' a reservist's who had the above mentioned "specific" training for response to DU incidents. Second, if ANY of the Anti-DU crowd's diatribes had any founding, why aren't there masses of civillians sick and dying all over the US? There are thousands of us (including Bob Cherry) who have actually handled (and inhaled and injested) HIGHLY oxidized DU particles on military ranges like Yuma, Aberdeen, Nellis, Jefferson... Proving Ground's, many for over 30 years, prior to there being special handling procedures like what are in place today, but yet there seems to be no irregularly high health effects amongst these individuals (I've been told they used to hold BBQ's with contaminated wood out in the contaminated areas at YPG in the 'old' days, YES TIMES HAVE CHANGED. What about the miners and fabricators of DU munitions and all the incidents that have occured there, the only thing I have heard anything about is lung problems, mostly associated with Radon, not heavy metal toxicity. Richard Urban MERELY a Radiation Protection Technician and former Alt. RSO Yuma, AZ From daitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Fri Jun 10 06:07:06 2005 From: daitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Fri Jun 10 06:09:07 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Letter to the Muskegon Chronicle In-Reply-To: <42A8A185.1010309@bovik.org> References: <42A8A185.1010309@bovik.org> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20050609225118.02accdf8@pop.nam.slb.com> Enough, Already! I think it is somewhat "dirty pool" for James Salsman to call into question the credentials of Bob Cherry, given that, by his own admission some time back, he has gleaned his (glibly proclaimed) knowledge of all things relevant to DU from trolling through the internet and has no professional qualifications whatsoever to enable him to separate fact from propaganda. And as he now (finally) admits that the hazard of DU is in the realm of chemical toxicology, it is an irrelevant discussion for the RADSAFE group. Just line it up with lead, tungsten and all the other heavy objects people fire at each other in wartime. Let's get back to discussing topics relevant to Health Physics Regards Doug At 03:07 PM 6/9/2005, James Salsman wrote: >................... I recommend >that you also contact a toxicologist familiar with heavy >metal catalytic damage to DNA, and show them these >publications from the peer-reviewed medical literature: > >http://www.bovik.org/du/Miller-DNA-damage.pdf >http://www.bovik.org/du/chromosome-abberations.pdf >http://www.bovik.org/du/devtox-mice.pdf >http://www.bovik.org/du/du-on-rats.pdf >http://www.bovik.org/du/inhalation-est.pdf * >http://www.bovik.org/du/5_Durakovic.pdf * >http://www.bovik.org/du/4_Durakovic.pdf * >http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/74 >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12854660&dopt=Abstract > >Dr. Cherry is not a medical doctor, but was merely a Radiation >Safety Officer and Health Physicist, and as such has no training >in reproductive toxicology or heavy metal toxicity. Doug Aitken Schlumberger D&M QHSE Advisor Office (rarely!) 281-285-8009 Home (better!) 713-797-0919 Cell (best?) 713-562-8585 From james at bovik.org Fri Jun 10 07:02:20 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Fri Jun 10 07:02:35 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: James Salsman on the Letter In-Reply-To: <30507690.1118369887266.JavaMail.root@wamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <30507690.1118369887266.JavaMail.root@wamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <42A91EDC.7020504@bovik.org> Richard Urban wrote: >... I have seen the Army training... the same type of thing > industrial workers get for any hazardous substance.... Why > should it be different here? Because uranium burns in air at a temperature right in the middle of the range at which it's primary combustion product, U3O8, produces monomolecular uranium trioxide gas vapor. No significant amount of UO3 has ever been detected in the dust particulate combustion products, but it has, as reported just last year, been found in soil and plated on the inside of contaminated tanks, and plated on the walls of an armory after a DU munitions fire: http://www.bovik.org/du/Salbu-uranyl-detected.pdf The fact that I, without any training beyond an incomplete chemistry minor, and after only a few days of library study, am apparently the first to point out to munitions researchers the fact that U3O8 produces UO3(g) at uranium's burning temperature, speaks volumes about the competence of those researchers, or lack thereof. None of the munitions studies were able to detect UO3(g), even if they had known to do so, because its 5 Angstrom diameter will pass through the filters they use to collect dust particles. Gaseous UO3 is unfilterable from air, dissipates less quickly than chlorine gas, and is instantly absorbed by the lungs. That makes it different from any other kind of metal dusts that workers are likely to encounter. Although I agree very strongly with Dr. Cherry that people ought to be doing actual empirical research on this subject instead of just speculating theory about it, I have calculated that absorption of a milligram of elemental uranium from UO3(g) is likely a full kilometer downwind, in a 5 km/h wind, from a 20-round shot of pyrophoric 30mm ordnance, after only 20 minutes of breathing. >... We don't let pipefitters go in to > decontaminate a reactor cavity in a powerplant, rail engineers > to clean up a derailed chlorine tanker, the same holds true > for the Army. Specific training, protective wear and > preparations are made for responses by "specialist's". > > As for "Dr. Cherry... was "merely" a Radiation Safety Officer > and Health Physicist"... I can't possibly imagine how you > would want to insult probably 75% plus of this community... Would it be an insult if you objected to surgery being performed by a mere chiropractor? You have answered your own question. We don't let pipefitters decontaminate power plants, and we don't let railroad engineers clean chlorine spills, so why do we have radiation safety personnel making decisions about heavy metal contamination? > Why aren't there masses of civillians sick and dying all over the US? Have there been any studies of the incidence of birth defects among firing range workers? In any case, the quantity of DU munitions used in testing is a tiny fraction of the amount used in 1991, 2002, and 2003, and from the very beginning all those tests were performed with care to keep personnel upwind. > There are thousands of us (including Bob Cherry) who have actually > handled (and inhaled and injested) HIGHLY oxidized DU particles on > military ranges like Yuma, Aberdeen, Nellis, Jefferson... Proving > Ground's, many for over 30 years, prior to there being special > handling procedures like what are in place today, but yet there > seems to be no irregularly high health effects.... Just how much inhalation do you think went on? There is essentially no cutaneous absorption of residue, and the physiology of ingestion is biokinetically different enough that GI tract absorption is substantially safer than inhalation. > What about the miners and fabricators of DU munitions...? Those people aren't inhaling the soluble combustion products. Mining dust is usually large enough (100 microns) that it is flushed from the lungs into the esophagus by mucus before being absorbed. Nobody is going to inhale any metalwork dusts because the pyrophoric nature of uranium means that all the metalwork has to be done in a nitrogen atmosphere, so the workers in the area have to wear air tanks and masks. "Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs" -- http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/74 "Infants conceived postwar to male GWVs had significantly higher prevalence of tricuspid valve insufficicieny (relative risk [RR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-6.6; p = 0.039) and aortic valve stenosis (RR, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.2-31.0; p = 0.026) compared to infants conceived postwar to nondeployed veteran males. Among infants of male GWVs, aortic valve stenosis (RR, 163; 95% CI, 0.09-294; p = 0.011) and renal agenesis or hypoplasia (RR, 16.3; 95% CI, 0.09-294; p = 0.011) were significantly higher among infants conceived postwar than prewar." -- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12854660&dopt=Abstract Sincerely, James Salsman From james at bovik.org Fri Jun 10 07:09:21 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Fri Jun 10 07:09:34 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Letter to the Muskegon Chronicle In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.2.20050609225118.02accdf8@pop.nam.slb.com> References: <42A8A185.1010309@bovik.org> <6.1.2.0.2.20050609225118.02accdf8@pop.nam.slb.com> Message-ID: <42A92081.8030603@bovik.org> Doug Aitken wrote: >... he now (finally) admits that the hazard of DU is in the > realm of chemical toxicology Actually, I was quite adamant about that last year, back when the list was still hosted at Vanderbilt. > it is an irrelevant discussion for the RADSAFE group.... > Let's get back to discussing topics relevant to Health Physics As Richard Urban so succinctly put it, we don't let pipefitters decontaminate nuclear power plants, and we don't let railroad engineers clean up chlorine tanker spills, but sadly, at least here in the U.S., radiation safety personnel and the NRC is entrusted with the decision-making authority concerning heavy metal toxicity. We must work with the regulatory regime that we have, not the regulatory regime that we might want or wish to have at a later time. Sincerely, James Salsman From daitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Fri Jun 10 08:15:12 2005 From: daitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Fri Jun 10 08:16:51 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Letter to the Muskegon Chronicle In-Reply-To: <42A92081.8030603@bovik.org> References: <42A8A185.1010309@bovik.org> <6.1.2.0.2.20050609225118.02accdf8@pop.nam.slb.com> <42A92081.8030603@bovik.org> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20050610011407.02b385e0@pop.nam.slb.com> At 12:09 AM 6/10/2005, James Salsman wrote: >........radiation safety personnel and the NRC is >entrusted with the decision-making authority concerning heavy >metal toxicity...... huh??? Doug Aitken Schlumberger D&M QHSE Advisor Office (rarely!) 281-285-8009 Home (better!) 713-797-0919 Cell (best?) 713-562-8585 From maurysis at ev1.net Fri Jun 10 10:10:12 2005 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Fri Jun 10 10:10:53 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Letter to the Muskegon Chronicle In-Reply-To: <42A8A185.1010309@bovik.org> References: <42A8A185.1010309@bovik.org> Message-ID: <42A94AE4.1080802@ev1.net> First, an unequivocal disclaimer -- I have no formal education as a health physicist or as a toxicologist. I do have a formal education in, have applied and published the results of scientific methodology. Your political arguments have and will continue to strain at gnats trying all the while to avoid sounding political and similarly trying in vain to sound scientific. None of this horse hockey will change seriously how wars are conducted. The inhalation of gunpowder and its combustion products is not conducive to better health -- nor is lead. James, do you think that nations have generally foregone uses of mustard or other gases because of the politics or because of ill health effects? Wars generally employ that which is believed selfishly to be the most effective to subdue opponents. Wars are often prolonged and sometimes even lost in part because of the crap foisted off on the public by people like you, Rokke, and others. When one starts delving into the claimed qualifications of individuals in order to substantiate their misguided assertions about DU, dioxin, winning or losing entire wars, and heaven only knows what other political tripe you desire, then you have departed the realm of science. My scientific patience breaks when Dr. Rokke and similar folks (to be gentle) are invoked as authority figures to subdue people who are merely health physicists or merely (real honest-to-God) medical doctors to overwhelm these PhD amateurs having no scientific breadth. Some scientists are MD's, but few MD's receive serious education in science unless they pursue research after they have earned their MD degree. What ducktwaddle to model the claims of Dr. Rokke as a basis for ending the use of DU munitions! What a bitter joke for those tankers hit by DU rounds. Rokke is a political hero for an adversarial worldwide press and a political hero for anti-war, anti-administration elements. Rokke however, bears little relevance to scientific endeavors. If Rokke would be willing to share, one might consider joining his evangelism -- probably a great way to travel and live well.... My idealism will not be realized; the world simply does not work that way, but the invocation of science for these purposes is as silly and trivial as the invocation of gods as rationales for the Inquisition. Like any other tool, science can be and is used for all varieties of purposes. Acceptance of that fact is unavoidable, but such political and propaganda usage as is promoted by you, Rokke, and the like, is a prostitution of science, is offensive, and should be recognized as the ignoble activity it really is. Cheers, Maury&Dog (MaurySiskel maurysis@ev1.net) ================ James Salsman wrote: > Robert N. Cherry, Jr., wrote in a Letter to the Editor > of the Muskegon Chronicle: > >> ... To help you get started on your research, ask some folks >> in the Nuclear Engineering Department at the University >> of Michigan (for example, Dr. Kearfott) or UM?s Radiation >> Safety Service (for example, Dr. Mark Driscoll) for an >> educated opinion on the potential biological effects of DU. > > > The chemical toxicity resulting from depleted uranium > inhalation exposure is several orders of magnitude more > hazardous than its radiological effects, so I recommend ======= snipped ======== From M.Schouwenburg at TNW.TUDelft.NL Fri Jun 10 11:54:40 2005 From: M.Schouwenburg at TNW.TUDelft.NL (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Fri Jun 10 11:54:27 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPA Press Stament on (COMARE)'s Tenth Report] Message-ID: <42A96360.2010905@TNW.TUDelft.NL> News from the UK. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Press Statement http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpa/news/articles/press_releases/2005/050610_childhood_cancer_nuclear.htm 10 June 2005 The incidence of childhood cancer around nuclear installations in Great Britain The Health Protection Agency (HPA) welcomes the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE)'s Tenth Report, an investigation into the incidence of childhood cancer around nuclear installations in Great Britain. The report uses advanced statistical techniques to see whether there are unusual aggregations (usually called clusters) of childhood cancer around these sites. There have been several reports of clusters of childhood cancer around nuclear installations and HPA is concerned to understand the reasons for these. Attention has often concentrated on leukaemia, the most common childhood cancer, and sometimes on both leukaemia and the related disease, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (collectively referred to as "LNHL"). The average number of cases of childhood cancer to be expected in an area over a specified time period can be calculated based on the size of the population. If many areas are examined, then in certain localities the number of cases observed will be somewhat greater than the number expected on average simply by chance, and the frequency with which this will happen can also be calculated. However, earlier research (Draper et al, 1991) has indicated that more clusters of LNHL are found than would be expected on the basis of chance alone. These clusters are found all over the country, not only near certain nuclear installations. A future COMARE report will examine the geographical distribution of childhood cancer in detail. The way that the extra clusters (those over and above those that would occur by chance) are distributed is complicated. Clustering can occur over a particular scale of distance or time - for example over a few miles rather than tens of miles or over a few years rather than tens of years. Moreover, there may be different types of clusters in different regions (e.g. counties). The new report uses sophisticated ways of investigating whether such clusters arise around nuclear installations. These statistical tests are sensitive both to a general increase in cancer in the area studied and to any tendency for rates to increase with proximity to the installation itself. Different statistical tests were selected as the most appropriate for different sites, based on their statistical power to detect trends in risks. Using these techniques, the new report found no evidence for raised rates of LNHL or of other childhood cancer within 25 km of nuclear power stations. For other nuclear installations, increased rates of LNHL were confirmed around Burghfield, Dounreay and Sellafield. There was evidence which reached statistical significance of a tendency for LNHL rates to increase with increasing proximity to Rosyth, with borderline suggestions of a similar trend around Capenhurst. In both instances there was no evidence of an increased incidence in the general locality. COMARE noted that another published study (Sharp et al, 1996) using similar methods had not found an increase of LNHL near Rosyth and recommended that the reasons for the discrepancy should be investigated. So far as other childhood cancers are concerned, there were raised incidence rates around the neighbouring sites Aldermaston, Burghfield and Harwell and also around Rosyth. COMARE suggests that the findings may largely reflect raised rates of solid cancers in these general areas. It is impossible for statistical tests to distinguish those clusters which arise solely because of the play of chance from the clusters which arise because of some specific cause. Extensive investigations have suggested that radiation doses from nuclear discharges are much too low to account for the extra cases of childhood cancer in the observed clusters (COMARE Fourth Report, 1996; Darby and Doll, 1987). Some investigations have provided support for a mechanism involving population mixing. A recent publication (Gilham et al, 2005) has provided support for the idea that lack of early exposure to infections may increase the risk of childhood leukaemia. However, it is likely that a number of factors are important. The HPA supports further investigations around Rosyth and looks forward to the COMARE Eleventh Report which will investigate clustering of childhood cancer across the whole of Great Britain rather than specifically around nuclear installations. This will allow a better understanding of this complex question. References Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) (2005). Tenth Report. The incidence of childhood cancer around nuclear installations in Great Britain. Downloads available from www.comare.org.uk and hard copies are available from the Information Office at the Health Protection Agency at Chilton. ISBN: 0-85951-561-3 (?13.50). Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) (1996). Fourth Report. The incidence of cancer and leukaemia in young people in the vicinity of the Sellafield site, West Cumbria: further studies and an update of the situation since the publication of the Black Advisory Group in 1984. Department of Health, London. Darby S C and Doll R (1987). Fallout, radiation doses near Dounreay, and childhood leukaemia. BMJ, 294, 603-7. Draper G J (ed) (1991). The geographical epidemiology of childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphomas in Great Britain, 1966-83, Studies on Medical and Population Subjects No.53, OPCS, HMSO, London. Gilham C, Peto J, Simpson J, et al. (2005). Day care in infancy and risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: findings from UK case-control study. BMJ, 330, 1294. This paper is available at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/330/7503/1294?ehom Sharp L, Black R J, Harkness E F and McKinney P A (1996). Incidence of childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the vicinity of nuclear sites in Scotland, 1968-93. Occup Environ Med, 53, 823-831. Press Enquiries only: Centre for Radiation, Chemicals and Environmental Hazards Press Office Tel: 01235 822744/822745, email: pressoffice@hpa-rp.org.uk Fred Dawson Health Physics Assistant Director & Team Leader Directorate of Safety & Claims 6-D-30 MOD Main Building whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Phone 020 780 70215 Mobile +44(0) 79 7316 9338 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Marcel Schouwenburg - RadSafe moderator & List owner Head Training Centre Delft National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV) Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft Delft University of Technology Mekelweg 15 NL - 2629 JB DELFT The Netherlands Phone +31 (0)15 27 86575 Fax +31 (0)15 27 81717 email m.schouwenburg@tnw.tudelft.nl From richard.t.whitman at dhs.gov Fri Jun 10 16:22:58 2005 From: richard.t.whitman at dhs.gov (Whitman, Richard T) Date: Fri Jun 10 16:17:28 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Letter to the Muskegon Chronicle Message-ID: Personal attacks are inapprorpriate for this forum. ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Letter to the Muskegon Chronicle Author: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl Date: 6/10/2005 1:09 AM Doug Aitken wrote: >... he now (finally) admits that the hazard of DU is in the > realm of chemical toxicology Actually, I was quite adamant about that last year, back when the list was still hosted at Vanderbilt. > it is an irrelevant discussion for the RADSAFE group.... > Let's get back to discussing topics relevant to Health Physics As Richard Urban so succinctly put it, we don't let pipefitters decontaminate nuclear power plants, and we don't let railroad engineers clean up chlorine tanker spills, but sadly, at least here in the U.S., radiation safety personnel and the NRC is entrusted with the decision-making authority concerning heavy metal toxicity. We must work with the regulatory regime that we have, not the regulatory regime that we might want or wish to have at a later time. Sincerely, James Salsman _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ . From richard.t.whitman at dhs.gov Fri Jun 10 16:24:49 2005 From: richard.t.whitman at dhs.gov (Whitman, Richard T) Date: Fri Jun 10 16:19:14 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Letter to the Muskegon Chronicle Message-ID: Personal attacks are inapprorpriate for this forum. ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Letter to the Muskegon Chronicle Author: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl Date: 6/10/2005 1:09 AM Doug Aitken wrote: >... he now (finally) admits that the hazard of DU is in the > realm of chemical toxicology Actually, I was quite adamant about that last year, back when the list was still hosted at Vanderbilt. > it is an irrelevant discussion for the RADSAFE group.... > Let's get back to discussing topics relevant to Health Physics As Richard Urban so succinctly put it, we don't let pipefitters decontaminate nuclear power plants, and we don't let railroad engineers clean up chlorine tanker spills, but sadly, at least here in the U.S., radiation safety personnel and the NRC is entrusted with the decision-making authority concerning heavy metal toxicity. We must work with the regulatory regime that we have, not the regulatory regime that we might want or wish to have at a later time. Sincerely, James Salsman _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ . From maurysis at ev1.net Fri Jun 10 16:55:42 2005 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Fri Jun 10 16:56:06 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Letter to the Muskegon Chronicle In-Reply-To: <42A8A185.1010309@bovik.org> References: <42A8A185.1010309@bovik.org> Message-ID: <42A9A9EE.7050007@ev1.net> First, an unequivocal disclaimer -- I have no formal education as a health physicist or as a toxicologist. I do have a formal education in, have applied and published the results of scientific methodology. Your political arguments have and will continue to strain at gnats trying all the while to avoid sounding political and similarly trying in vain to sound scientific. None of this horse hockey will change seriously how wars are conducted. The inhalation of gunpowder and its combustion products is not conducive to better health -- nor is lead. James, do you think that nations have generally foregone uses of mustard or other gases because of the politics or because of ill health effects? Wars generally employ that which is believed selfishly to be the most effective to subdue opponents. Wars are often prolonged and sometimes even lost in part because of the crap foisted off on the public by people like you, Rokke, and others. When one starts delving into the claimed qualifications of individuals in order to substantiate their misguided assertions about DU, dioxin, winning or losing entire wars, and heaven only knows what other political tripe you desire, then you have departed the realm of science. My scientific patience breaks when Dr. Rokke and similar folks (to be gentle) are invoked as authority figures to subdue people who are merely health physicists or merely (real honest-to-God) medical doctors to overwhelm these PhD amateurs having no scientific breadth. Some scientists are MD's, but few MD's receive serious education in science unless they pursue research after they have earned their MD degree. What ducktwaddle to model the claims of Dr. Rokke as a basis for ending the use of DU munitions! What a bitter joke for those tankers hit by DU rounds. Rokke is a political hero for an adversarial worldwide press and a political hero for anti-war, anti-administration elements. Rokke however, bears little relevance to scientific endeavors. If Rokke would be willing to share, one might consider joining his evangelism -- probably a great way to travel and live well.... My idealism will not be realized; the world simply does not work that way, but the invocation of science for these purposes is as silly and trivial as the invocation of gods as rationales for the Inquisition. Like any other tool, science can be and is used for all varieties of purposes. Acceptance of that fact is unavoidable, but such political and propaganda usage as is promoted by you, Rokke, and the like, is a prostitution of science, is offensive, and should be recognized as the ignoble activity it really is. Cheers, Maury&Dog (MaurySiskel maurysis@ev1.net) ================== James Salsman wrote: > Robert N. Cherry, Jr., wrote in a Letter to the Editor > of the Muskegon Chronicle: > >> ... To help you get started on your research, ask some folks >> in the Nuclear Engineering Department at the University >> of Michigan (for example, Dr. Kearfott) or UM?s Radiation >> Safety Service (for example, Dr. Mark Driscoll) for an >> educated opinion on the potential biological effects of DU. > > The chemical toxicity resulting from depleted uranium > inhalation exposure is several orders of magnitude more > hazardous than its radiological effects, so I recommend > that you also contact a toxicologist familiar with heavy > metal catalytic damage to DNA, and show them these > publications from the peer-reviewed medical literature: > > http://www.bovik.org/du/Miller-DNA-damage.pdf > http://www.bovik.org/du/chromosome-abberations.pdf > http://www.bovik.org/du/devtox-mice.pdf > http://www.bovik.org/du/du-on-rats.pdf > http://www.bovik.org/du/inhalation-est.pdf * > http://www.bovik.org/du/5_Durakovic.pdf * > http://www.bovik.org/du/4_Durakovic.pdf * > http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/74 > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12854660&dopt=Abstract > > > * I especially recommend the publications by Asaf Durakovic, > M.D., a former colleague of Dr. Cherry, and also a retired Army > Colonel, but a medical doctor with toxicology training who ---------------- snipped -------------- From frantaj at aecl.ca Fri Jun 10 17:14:07 2005 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Fri Jun 10 17:14:28 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Nuclear stations 'do not cause child cancer': Independent scien tists rule out link with disease clusters " Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A3C0@sps13.aecl.ca> FYI..... Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nuclear stations 'do not cause child cancer': Independent scientists rule out link with disease clusters The Guardian (UK) 10 June 2005 Sarah Boseley Health editor Nuclear power stations were yesterday cleared of any responsibility for childhood cancers in Britain by a high-level team of independent scientists. The verdict from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (Comare) is unequivocal. It looked at an area within a 25- mile radius of all the main nuclear power stations and found there were no more cancer cases than would have been expected. The committee looked at 21 sites, which included 13 power stations and 15 other nuclear installations. They found, as they have done in earlier reports, that there were clusters of excess leukaemias and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas near the reprocessing plants of Sellafield and Dounreay and the atomic weapons establishment of Burghfield. There were also slightly more other sorts of childhood cancers around Aldermaston, Burghfield and Harwell. But Bryn Bridges, chairman of Comare, said the reasons for the increases were not clear. At Dounreay, the numbers rose around 1980, but have not been exceptional since. He said the "blip" coincided with the birth of the North Sea oil industry, in nearby Thurso. One scientific theory is that the population mixing caused by the arrival of a migrant workforce into a previously remote and isolated community can lead to the transfer of new viruses which may play a part in cancer. A similar process could have taken place in Sellafield in Cumbria, he said. Professor Bridges said the report should mark the end of a long controversy, but was not confident the impassioned arguments would end. "As far as childhood cancer and nuclear power stations is concerned, I'm quite sure Comare would feel we have done a definitive report on it," he said. "Whether those from the anti-nuclear lobbies will think that, I don't know." Although the report comes at a time when the government is thinking of increasing Britain's use of nuclear power, Prof Bridges denied the report could be considered a political fix. "We started our study in 1993. It has taken a long time. There has been no pressure from anybody to publish it now or not publish it last year or the year before," he said. Only one finding was surprising, he said. At Rosyth in Scotland, where nuclear submarines are stationed, there were no extra childhood cancers, but those that were identified were not distributed evenly - they tended to occur closer to the base. Prof Bridges said this merited further investigation, although an earlier study had found an even spread. Comare was set up in 1985 after the Black report in 1984 into the high numbers of leukaemia cases among young people living near Sellafield. In its early years, said Prof Bridges, it had to fight for accurate data from the nuclear industry on discharges from power stations. "I'm not saying anybody covered anything up - they just didn't tell us," he said. The committee uncovered details about discharges that nobody had known about. The worst discharges were from Sellafield in the 1960s and 1970s, which at one point were 200,000 times greater than Aldeburgh and Burghfield combined, he said. Comare has carried out a study of the geographical spread of childhood cancers for its next report. It finds that 95% of cancers are randomly spread, but that there are clusters. Past studies have shown an increased rate in south Oxfordshire and Berkshire, but Prof Bridges said the increases were not limited to the vicinity of Aldermaston, Harwell and Burghfield. He was unimpressed by some of the research adopted by campaigners to make the case against nuclear power. "They can't do their sums and their data sets are defective," he said. "Most of the measurements are based on tiny numbers." He was equally unimpressed by lobby groups who "take data only when it supports their case and they manipulate that data one way or another to support their case". =========================================== CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From Peter.Vernig at med.va.gov Fri Jun 10 17:39:23 2005 From: Peter.Vernig at med.va.gov (Vernig, Peter G.) Date: Fri Jun 10 17:39:19 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] X-Ray On Lights Message-ID: If I might interrupt the debate about the toxicity and morality of DU and the educational backgrounds of the participants I have a real question that somebody on Radsafe might just help me with. All of our fixed x-ray rooms including the cath labs have lights that say X-Ray on and light up either when the rotor of a radiographic unit is spinning [for those of you not familiar with medical diagnostic x-rays the anode rotates to dissipate heat generated when the electrons strike the anode and usually the rotor spins in anticipation of the actual burst of electrons.] or when fluoro units are producing x-rays. It seems that most if not all of the other VAs have a variation on this. Wording may differ, one facility the light just goes on during x-rays so that unless you stare at it, you'd miss it for radiographic units. My question is does anybody know the origin of this. A reg, rule, or standard or best practice? The reason I ask is technology is expanding and we have a DEXA [dual energy x-ray analyzer] for bone densitometry which produces say 10% of less of the x-rays that a normal radiographic unit puts out and we are getting a hybrid SPECT/CT unit. The DEXA doesn't have such a light and we are tentatively planning on putting a light on the SPECT/CT. But if there is a standard or recommendation or some such it would be nice to know just what it says. BTW SPECT = single photon emission computed tomography, a type of gamma camera. Please don't bother with a check state regs or probably an NCRP. I have looked at both, but if anybody knows I would be very grateful for the information. Sorry to interrupt the political debate. Any opinions in this e-mail are solely those of the author, and are not represented as those of the VA Eastern Colorado HCS, the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, or the US Government. Peter G. Vernig, Radiation Safety Officer, MS-115, VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, 1055 Clermont St. Denver, CO 80220, peter.vernig@med.va.gov, Phone= 303.399.8020 x2447; Fax = 303.393.5026, alternate fax, 303.393.5248 "...whatever is true, whatever is noble, 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 From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri Jun 10 18:51:54 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri Jun 10 18:52:05 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Radiological Dispersal Device/Radiological Terrorism Web Page Message-ID: <20050610165154.57213.qmail@web54306.mail.yahoo.com> --- William Adams Jr > Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:11:02 -0400 > To: > CC: > Subject: [Navrhoret] USUHS Radiology Dept RDD page > > Shipmates, in our continuing quest to provide > information on current issues, we put together a > page of web links on Radiological Dispersal Devices. > For many if not most of you, these will be old hat, > but for those of you unfamiliar with this topic, > visit the page and enjoy the reading. > The URL is: > http://rad.usuhs.mil/rdd/usuhs_rdd.html > > > Have a great Navy weekend! . . . +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From james.g.barnes at att.net Fri Jun 10 21:01:08 2005 From: james.g.barnes at att.net (james.g.barnes@att.net) Date: Fri Jun 10 21:01:22 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] X-Ray On Lights Message-ID: <061020051901.12961.42A9E3730006F391000032A121603759649C0A029D0E0DD209D29C0A030E06@att.net> Peter; Here are some that immediately came to mind; I don't know if they are applicable to your situation, but a manufacturer would have to comply to them. [CITE: 21CFR1020.31] (Radiographic) (j) Beam-on indicators. The x-ray control shall provide visual indication whenever x-rays are produced. In addition, a signal audible to the operator shall indicate that the exposure has terminated. [CITE: 21CFR1020.32] (Fluoro; not exactly a light, but still an alarm requirement. In this situation the concern may be that a warning light would interfere with the physician's "dark adapted" vision; this is speculation on my part) (h) Fluoroscopic timer. Means shall be provided to preset the cumulative on-time of the fluoroscopic tube. The maximum cumulative time of the timing device shall not exceed 5 minutes without resetting. A signal audible to the fluoroscopist shall indicate the completion of any preset cumulative on-time. Such signal shall continue to sound while x-rays are produced until the timing device is reset. As an alternative to the requirements of this paragraph, radiation therapy simulation systems may be provided with a means to indicate the total cumulative exposure time during which x-rays were produced, and which is capable of being reset between x-ray examinations. [CITE: 21CFR1020.33] (CT Equipment) (h) Beam-on and shutter status indicators. (1) Means shall be provided on the control and on or near the housing of the scanning mechanism to provide visual indication when and only when x rays are produced and, if applicable, whether the shutter is open or closed. If the x-ray production period is less than one-half second, the indication of x-ray production shall be actuated for one-half second. Indicators at or near the housing of the scanning mechanism shall be discernible from any point external to the patient opening where insertion of any part of the human body into the primary beam is possible. The following are other references: NCRP Report #33, Medical X-ray and Gamma-Ray Protecton for Energies Up To 10 MeV. 3.2, Fixed Radiographic Equipment; 3.2.1 (g): The control panel shall include a device (usually a milliammeter) to give positive indication of the production of x rays whenever the x-ray tube is energized. [It appears the mA meter is being substituted for a light.-jgb] 3.4, X-ray Therapy Equipment; 3.4.1 (h): An easily discernible indicator which shows whether or not x rays are being produced shall be on the control panel. (r) An easily discernible or audible indicator which shows whether or not x rays are being produced should be provided in the treatment room for x-ray equipment capable of operating above 500 kVp. There are also THESE requirements for NON-medical systems. [CITE: 21CFR1020.40] (7) Additional controls and indicators for cabinet x-ray systems designed to admit humans. For cabinet x-ray systems designed to admit humans there shall also be provided: (i) A control within the cabinet for preventing and terminating x-ray generation, which cannot be reset, overridden or bypassed from the outside of the cabinet. (ii) No means by which x-ray generation can be initiated from within the cabinet. (iii) Audible and visible warning signals within the cabinet which are actuated for at least 10 seconds immediately prior to the first initiation of x-ray generation after closing any door designed to admit humans. Failure of any single component of the cabinet x-ray system shall not cause failure of both the audible and visible warning signals. (iv) A visible warning signal within the cabinet which remains actuated when and only when x-rays are being generated, unless the x-ray generation period is less than one-half second in which case the indicators shall be activated for one-half second. (v) Signs indicating the meaning of the warning signals provided pursuant to paragraphs (c)(7) (iii) and (iv) of this section and containing instructions for the use of the control provided pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i) of this section. These signs shall be legible, accessible to view, and illuminated when the main power control is in the “on” position. Hope this is useful. Jim Barnes -------------- Original message from "Vernig, Peter G." : -------------- > If I might interrupt the debate about the toxicity and morality of DU and > the educational backgrounds of the participants I have a real question that > somebody on Radsafe might just help me with. > > All of our fixed x-ray rooms including the cath labs have lights that say > X-Ray on and light up either when the rotor of a radiographic unit is > spinning [for those of you not familiar with medical diagnostic x-rays the > anode rotates to dissipate heat generated when the electrons strike the > anode and usually the rotor spins in anticipation of the actual burst of > electrons.] or when fluoro units are producing x-rays. > > It seems that most if not all of the other VAs have a variation on this. > Wording may differ, one facility the light just goes on during x-rays so > that unless you stare at it, you'd miss it for radiographic units. > > My question is does anybody know the origin of this. A reg, rule, or > standard or best practice? > > The reason I ask is technology is expanding and we have a DEXA [dual energy > x-ray analyzer] for bone densitometry which produces say 10% of less of the > x-rays that a normal radiographic unit puts out and we are getting a hybrid > SPECT/CT unit. The DEXA doesn't have such a light and we are tentatively > planning on putting a light on the SPECT/CT. But if there is a standard or > recommendation or some such it would be nice to know just what it says. BTW > SPECT = single photon emission computed tomography, a type of gamma camera. > > Please don't bother with a check state regs or probably an NCRP. I have > looked at both, but if anybody knows I would be very grateful for the > information. > > Sorry to interrupt the political debate. > > Any opinions in this e-mail are solely those of the author, and are not > represented as those of the VA Eastern Colorado HCS, the Dept. of Veterans > Affairs, or the US Government. > > Peter G. Vernig, Radiation Safety Officer, MS-115, VA Eastern Colorado > Health Care System, 1055 Clermont St. Denver, CO 80220, > peter.vernig@med.va.gov, Phone= 303.399.8020 x2447; Fax = 303.393.5026, > alternate fax, 303.393.5248 > > "...whatever is true, whatever is noble, 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 radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the > RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri Jun 10 21:19:54 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri Jun 10 21:20:05 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article: At the Foot of the Rockies, Cleaning a Radioactive Wasteland Message-ID: <20050610191954.92364.qmail@web54301.mail.yahoo.com> >From the New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/science/earth/07flat.html? ------------- June 7, 2005 At the Foot of the Rockies, Cleaning a Radioactive Wasteland By HILLARY ROSNER BOULDER, Colo., June 4 - On a tallgrass prairie mesa that seems to float midway between the Denver skyline and the craggy Flatiron foothills, the largest hazardous waste cleanup in American history is entering its final stages. For more than three decades the mesa was home to Rocky Flats, a high-security, top-secret factory that made plutonium triggers for the government's nuclear arsenal. The plant was shut down in an F.B.I. raid in 1989, and the Energy Department's contractor, Rockwell International, pleaded guilty to illegal dumping of radioactive waste. Today there are few remaining visual cues to the history of Rocky Flats. The site - at 6,266 acres, nearly half the size of Manhattan - is being turned into a wildlife refuge. When it opens, in 2008 at the earliest, the breezy meadow, populated by deer, hawks, jackrabbits, prairie dogs and coyotes, is to have public space for hiking, biking and horseback riding. Decontaminating, demolishing and disposing of Rocky Flats - a $6.8 billion task expected to be finished in October - has involved what Steve Gunderson, coordinator of the cleanup for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, calls a series of "unbelievable" technological feats. More than 39,500 containers with about 20,000 cubic yards of highly radioactive transuranic waste have gone to their final resting place at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, N.M. Excavators are razing the last remaining buildings as huge water jets help contain the dust. On the site of the building once known as the most dangerous in America, where liquid plutonium often leaked from faulty pipes and valves, there is only a large patch of replanted land covered by coconut matting to prevent erosion. Before they could come down, the buildings needed to be decontaminated, which meant removing and disposing of massive pieces of highly toxic and radioactive equipment. The walls of some buildings were several feet thick, and there were virtually no blueprints for the miles of piping and ventilation systems, which had been modified repeatedly over the years with little documentation. One particular challenge was the glove boxes, the sealed chambers in which workers handled the plutonium using long rubber gloves that were extended in through portholes. There were roughly 1,500 glove boxes at Rocky Flats, ranging in size from that of a car to a very large room. Because they were highly contaminated, they would have to be shipped to New Mexico. This meant slicing them into chunks to fit into 55-gallon drums. In the beginning, moon-suited workers used electric saws to slice through the stainless steel. But after a worker cut himself and ended up with a dangerous dose of plutonium, the cleanup contractor, the Kaiser-Hill Company of Golden, Colo., had "to come up with a better, safer way to do this work," said Howard Gilpin, its director of safety, engineering and quality programs. Several innovations seemed promising, but were ultimately discarded. In Building 771, where plutonium was processed, workers constructed a confinement tent where they would wheel the glove boxes and cut them with a plasma torch. "The big problem is you're aerosolizing plutonium when you cut it like that," Mr. Gilpin said. "So we had to build high-efficiency air filtration systems. But you still had workers in there physically doing things with their hands." Next came a robotics system, which removed the workers from the cutting process but kept breaking down, requiring workers to enter the tent and fix the problem. The "magical solution," Mr. Gilpin said, came in the form of cerium nitrate, a chemical that bonds with plutonium. Cerium lightly etches the metal of the glove-box walls and draws the plutonium into a nitric acid solution. Nancy Tuor, Kaiser-Hill's president and chief executive, compared the process to "cleaning the bathroom." "Spray bottles, Scotch-Brite, squeegees, rags," she said. "They literally would go in and spray the cerium nitrate inside the glove boxes and then just wipe off the contamination." The rags became transuranic waste, but the glove boxes themselves were now low-level waste - meaning they could be shipped in larger containers and did not need to be cut into bits. Some of the Rocky Flats cleanup work involved the same puzzle-piecing skills as packing the trunk of a car. "You can't just throw all this stuff in these cargo containers," said Jerry Long, Kaiser-Hill's vice president for material stewardship. "You have to know that you won't have stuff moving around." Dismantling the buildings was yet another challenge. To protect themselves from any plutonium that might be in the air, workers fogged the rooms with sticky fixatives that captured the radioactive materials and pinned them to the walls. Concrete shavers were later used to scrape off the contaminated layers. The buildings were then demolished in various ways, depending on their level of contamination. In some cases, the buildings were so strongly reinforced that explosives were used to set off sound waves that shook the lattices of rebar rods free of the concrete. "Some of these buildings were built to withstand a Russian bomber attack," said David Maloney, technology director for CH2M Hill, Kaiser-Hill's parent company. "They were designed not to be blown up. That really gives the explosives guys something to think about." Beyond the physical structures, environmental contamination in the soil and groundwater must also be cleaned up. This has proved the biggest sticking point with community watchdogs, who worry that the Energy Department did not require Kaiser-Hill to dig deep enough. The contract set allowable levels for radioactivity in the first three feet of soil at no more than 50 picocuries of plutonium per gram, a level at which 1 in 500,000 workers at the wildlife refuge would be at increased risk for cancer. From three to six feet, radioactivity can remain at 1,000 picocuries per gram, and below six feet there are no standard limits. Starting this month, Blackhawk helicopters outfitted with radiation monitoring systems will fly 50 feet over the site, back and forth in 100-foot paths, looking for hot spots in the soil. The groundwater, contaminated with uranium and industrial solvents, eventually enters the creeks that flow across Rocky Flats. To stop this, engineers devised a barricade to trap the water at the bottom of a hill, then built a simple filtering system that uses iron filings to bind the contaminants chemically. Filtered water then flows into the creek, which eventually feeds into the South Platte River. Critics of Rocky Flats and the cleanup project argue that there is just no way to make the site safe. "There's too much stuff scattered and thrown away out there," said Wes McKinley, who served as grand jury foreman in the government's investigation of Rockwell, Rocky Flats' former contractor, and is now a member of the Colorado Legislature. Mr. McKinley said the Energy Department's past handling of Rocky Flats made it hard to trust this time around. Representative Mark Udall, a Democrat who represents the area in Congress, agreed that "the history of the facility would remind all of us that we have to be vigilant," but he said he was pleased with the cleanup levels. An author of the bill that established the refuge, he called it "a hidden reward for having closed off these areas." Some critics worry that transforming Rocky Flats into a wildlife refuge buries the truth of the real Rocky Flats legacy. "The rush to normalize Rocky Flats, to make it another chunk of open space, essentially erases the fact that for 37 years nuclear weapons were manufactured there," said Len Ackland, director of the Center for Environmental Journalism at the University of Colorado and the author of "Making a Real Killing," a 1999 book about Rocky Flats. But its past will not be entirely forgotten. The 500-acre industrial area will remain closed to the public, under Energy Department control. "You don't want people to forget, 150 years from now," said Ms. Tuor, the Kaiser-Hill chief executive, "and go start digging around down there." Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html From DNorth at lifespan.org Fri Jun 10 21:34:44 2005 From: DNorth at lifespan.org (North, David) Date: Fri Jun 10 21:34:57 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] X-Ray On Lights Message-ID: <09C945920A6B654199F7A58A1D7D1FDEDE11EB@lsexch.lsmaster.lifespan.org> As far as I know, the practice of mounting lights such as you describe outside x-ray rooms is just that: a practice. But I am always willing to be further educated. Another practice which nowadays is generally discouraged is linking an exposure interrupter to the door. The idea is to prevent someone from becoming inadvertently exposed if he/she opens the door during a radiographic or fluoroscopic procedure. The problem is that while you may prevent a tiny dose to the door-opener, you have interfered with an x-ray exam and possibly necessitated additional (much greater) dose to the poor patient. I can't see why a DEXA scanner would ever need such a light because the stray radiation levels from those units are so low that the tech can sit in the room right next to the scanning couch all day and not even come close to any reasonable ALARA limit. An "X-RAY ON" light outside the SPECT/CT ROOM is a reasonable idea just for the fact that there is a CT scanner in the room. The door shouldn't be locked in case the patient tanks and a code team needs to get in there quickly. David L. North, Sc.M., DABR Associate Physicist Medical Physics Main Bldg. Rm 317 Rhode Island Hospital 593 Eddy St. Providence, RI 02903 (401)444-5961 fax: (401)444-4446 dnorth@lifespan.org > ---------- > From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl on behalf of Vernig, Peter G. > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 11:39 > To: radsafe@radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] X-Ray On Lights > > If I might interrupt the debate about the toxicity and morality of DU and > the educational backgrounds of the participants I have a real question > that > somebody on Radsafe might just help me with. > > All of our fixed x-ray rooms including the cath labs have lights that say > X-Ray on and light up either when the rotor of a radiographic unit is > spinning [for those of you not familiar with medical diagnostic x-rays the > anode rotates to dissipate heat generated when the electrons strike the > anode and usually the rotor spins in anticipation of the actual burst of > electrons.] or when fluoro units are producing x-rays. > > It seems that most if not all of the other VAs have a variation on this. > Wording may differ, one facility the light just goes on during x-rays so > that unless you stare at it, you'd miss it for radiographic units. > > My question is does anybody know the origin of this. A reg, rule, or > standard or best practice? > > The reason I ask is technology is expanding and we have a DEXA [dual > energy > x-ray analyzer] for bone densitometry which produces say 10% of less of > the > x-rays that a normal radiographic unit puts out and we are getting a > hybrid > SPECT/CT unit. The DEXA doesn't have such a light and we are tentatively > planning on putting a light on the SPECT/CT. But if there is a standard > or > recommendation or some such it would be nice to know just what it says. > BTW > SPECT = single photon emission computed tomography, a type of gamma > camera. > From Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us Fri Jun 10 22:00:26 2005 From: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us (Jim Hardeman) Date: Fri Jun 10 22:01:03 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Job Announcement Message-ID: Below is a job announcement for the position of Environmental Program Manager I, in charge of the Radioactive Materials Program (i.e. radioactive materials licensing and inspection) in the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Environmental Protection Division (EPD). Interested persons should follow the instructions in the announcement ... not contact me. Jim Hardeman, Manager Environmental Radiation Program Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources 4220 International Parkway, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30354 (404) 362-2675 Fax: (404) 362-2653 E-mail: Jim_Hardeman@dnr.state.ga.us ================= Posting Date: June 10, 2005 Aplication Deadline Date: June 21, 2005 *********************************************************************** ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION *********************************************************************** ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM MANAGER I (19417) LOCATIONS: 00101060 Program Coordination Clayton County 00183138 Air Protection 00101176 Clayton County 00179792 Program Coordination Bartow County 00160086 Program Coordination Richmond County SALARY RANGE: $4,221.08---$7,373.62 Monthly TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE: Completion of an undergraduate degree in environmental sciences, biology, chemistry, engineering(civil, chemical, environmental, mechanical or sanitary) or a related field AND four years of professional experience in environmental protection. NOTE: "FOR POSITION #00101060" (1) Preference will be given to applicants with experience in dealing with radioactive materials licensing procedures. "FOR POSITION # 00183138" (2) Preference will be given to applicants with experience in photochemical air quality modeling and knowledge of air quality dispersion modeling. "FOR POSITION # 00101176" (3) Preference will be given to applicants with AFS data reporting requirements, stationary source emission inventories and EPD's Title V applications. "FOR POSITION # 00160086" (4) Preference will be given to applicants with at least four years of compliance experience in multi-programmatic environmental regulatory responsibilities specifically including water supply, water quality, and solid waste as assigned to District operations. (5) Preference will be given to applicants with four years of experience in participating in enforcement and expedited enforcement proceedings provided within the environmental laws of the State of Georgia. THE JOB OUTLOOK seeks to ensure all eligible applicants an equal opportunity to be considered for vacancies within the Department of Natural Resources.If you wish to be considered for any position(s) listed in the JOB OUTLOOK, proceed as follows: 1. Complete a Merit System application. A SEPARATE APPLICATION OR PHOTOCOPY MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR EACH POSITION for which you wish to be considered. The COMPLETE AND CORRECT JOB TITLE, POSITION NUMBER AND LOCATION of the position that you are interested in must be listed on the front of the application. The application should show your training and experience in DETAIL. 2. Submit your completed application to the DNR OFFICE OF PERSONNEL SERVICES, 2 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.DR.S.E.SUITE 1258 EAST TOWER, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30334. Unless a statement stating otherwise is listed with that vacancy announcement. DO NOT submit the application to the supervisor of the position for which you wish to be considered or to the Merit System. YOUR APPLICATION MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN THE APPLICATION DEADLINE RECEIPT DATE NOTED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE JOB OUTLOOK. For those vacancies announced as both Merit and Non-Merit, the Office of Personnel Services will process your application(s) accordingly: A. If you are currently in a Merit position, your application will be forwarded to the supervisor of the vacant position who will review and determine your eligibility for the position(s). If there are any concerns with any applicant meeting minimum qualifications, your application(s) may be reviewed by the supervisor and\or the personnel office in conjunction with the Georgia Merit System to determine your eligibility. The supervisor of vacancy will notify you if you are\are not selected for an interview. B. If you are currently in a Non-merit position or not currently employed by the State, your application will be forwarded to the supervisor of the vacant position, who will review and determine your eligibility for the position. The supervisor will notify you if you are\are not selected for an interview. For those vacancies announced as only Non-merit, all applications will be processed as provided in "B" above. DNR POSTING REQUIREMENT Upon receipt, each supervisor will ensure that the JOB OUTLOOK is posted in a prominent place that is accessible to both DNR associates and applicants. Where such posting cannot be accommodated, the supervisor will ensure that all associates under his/her supervision are made aware of the vacancies in the JOB OUTLOOK. FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT VACANCIES LISTED HEREIN CAN BE OBTAINED BY CALLING DNR OFFICE OF PERSONNEL SERVICES AT (404) 656-2695. If YOU NEED THIS ANNOUNCEMENT IN AN ALTERNATE FORMAT, CONTACT THE DNR OFFICE OF PERSONNEL SERVICES AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS OR FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE ONLY: 1-800-255-0056 (TEXT TELEPHONE) OR 1-800-255-0135 (VOICE). From ben.morgan at pgnmail.com Fri Jun 10 22:17:08 2005 From: ben.morgan at pgnmail.com (Morgan, Ben) Date: Fri Jun 10 22:17:50 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] X-Ray On Lights Message-ID: <81E468008807D04DB790FBD00E98553D113545@nt000546.oak.zone1.progress-energy.com> Peter, At the Harris Nuclear Plant our security X-ray machines have a light that comes on when the beam is energized. Since these machines are licensed by the state of North Carolina [an agreement state] I suspected there might be something in our state regulations. I found the following: NORTH CAROLINA REGULATIONS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION 15A NCAC 11 .0803 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS (f) An easily visible warning light labeled with the words "X-RAY ON" or words having a similar intent, shall be located outside each entrance into the room containing an analytical x-ray tube and shall be illuminated only when the tube is energized; or in the case of a radioactive source, shall be illuminated only when the shutter is open. On equipment installed after the effective date of this Rule, warning lights shall have fail-safe characteristics. Its not clear where this comes from but I started poking around at the EPA, FDA and NRC web sites and eventually wound up at Virginia's radiation protection regulations where I found: 12VAC5-480-8500. Therapeutic x-ray systems of less than one MeV. B. Facility Design Requirements for Systems Capable of Operating Above 50 kVp. In addition to shielding adequate to meet requirements of Sections 5 and 7 of these regulations, the treatment room shall meet the following design requirements: 1. Warning Lights. Treatment rooms to which access is possible through more than one entrance shall be provided with warning lights, in a readily observable position near the outside of all access doors, which will indicate when the useful beam is "on." http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+reg+12VAC5-480-8500 12VAC5-480-8510. X-ray and electron therapy systems with energies of one MeV and above. B5. Room Entrances. Treatment room entrances shall be provided with warning lights in readily observable positions near the outside of all access doors to indicate when the useful beam is "on". http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+reg+12VAC5-480-8510 I also checked the section on diagnostic X-rays [12VAC5-480-8460. General requirements for all diagnostic x-ray systems] but I didn't see anything about entrance signs. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+reg+12VAC5-480-8460 At the NRC's site I ran across Reg Guide 8.18 which is for maintaining doses at medical facilities ALARA. In section C 3.2.a(2) the use of a "Beam On" light is discussed for therapy units that use NRC-licensed sources. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/occupational-he alth/active/8-18/08-018.pdf Regards, Ben ben.morgan@pgnmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Vernig, Peter G. Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 11:39 AM To: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] X-Ray On Lights If I might interrupt the debate about the toxicity and morality of DU and the educational backgrounds of the participants I have a real question that somebody on Radsafe might just help me with. All of our fixed x-ray rooms including the cath labs have lights that say X-Ray on and light up either when the rotor of a radiographic unit is spinning [for those of you not familiar with medical diagnostic x-rays the anode rotates to dissipate heat generated when the electrons strike the anode and usually the rotor spins in anticipation of the actual burst of electrons.] or when fluoro units are producing x-rays. It seems that most if not all of the other VAs have a variation on this. Wording may differ, one facility the light just goes on during x-rays so that unless you stare at it, you'd miss it for radiographic units. My question is does anybody know the origin of this. A reg, rule, or standard or best practice? The reason I ask is technology is expanding and we have a DEXA [dual energy x-ray analyzer] for bone densitometry which produces say 10% of less of the x-rays that a normal radiographic unit puts out and we are getting a hybrid SPECT/CT unit. The DEXA doesn't have such a light and we are tentatively planning on putting a light on the SPECT/CT. But if there is a standard or recommendation or some such it would be nice to know just what it says. BTW SPECT = single photon emission computed tomography, a type of gamma camera. Please don't bother with a check state regs or probably an NCRP. I have looked at both, but if anybody knows I would be very grateful for the information. Sorry to interrupt the political debate. Any opinions in this e-mail are solely those of the author, and are not represented as those of the VA Eastern Colorado HCS, the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, or the US Government. Peter G. Vernig, Radiation Safety Officer, MS-115, VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, 1055 Clermont St. Denver, CO 80220, peter.vernig@med.va.gov, Phone= 303.399.8020 x2447; Fax = 303.393.5026, alternate fax, 303.393.5248 "...whatever is true, whatever is noble, 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 radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From ben.morgan at pgnmail.com Fri Jun 10 22:59:05 2005 From: ben.morgan at pgnmail.com (Morgan, Ben) Date: Fri Jun 10 22:59:47 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] X-Ray On Lights Message-ID: <81E468008807D04DB790FBD00E98553D113546@nt000546.oak.zone1.progress-energy.com> David, I see your point about interrupting an X-ray but here's what the Rhode Island regulations have to say: H.6.15 Additional Requirements. Treatment rooms which contain a therapeutic radiation machine capable of operating above 150 kV shall meet the following additional requirements: (a) All protective barriers shall be fixed except for entrance doors or beam interceptors. (b) The control panel shall be located outside the treatment room. (c) Interlocks shall be provided such that all entrance doors, including doors to any interior booths, shall be closed before treatment can be initiated or continued. If the radiation beam is interrupted by any door opening, it shall not be possible to restore the machine to operation without closing the door and reinitiating irradiation by manual action at the control panel; and (d) When any door referred to in H.6.15(c) is opened while the X-ray tube is activated, the air kerma rate at a distance of 1 meter from the source shall be reduced to less than 1 mGy (100 mrad) per hour. H.7.17 Facility Design Requirements for Therapeutic Radiation Machines Operating above 500 kV. In addition to shielding adequate to meet requirements of H.9, the following design requirements are made: (e) Room Entrances. Treatment room entrances shall be provided with warning lights in a readily observable position near the outside of all access doors, which will indicate when the useful beam is "ON" and when it is "OFF". (f) Entrance Interlocks. Interlocks shall be provided such that all access controls are activated before treatment can be initiated or continued. If the radiation beam is interrupted by any access control, it shall not be possible to restore the machine to operation without resetting the access control and reinitiating irradiation by manual action at the control panel. http://www.rules.state.ri.us/rules/released/pdf/DOH/DOH_3166.pdf I think all of these state regulations are implementing the same Federal guidance but it's interesting how many different ways they've found to do it. Virginia requires lights that tell you when the beam is "on". Rhode Island requires lights that tell you when it's "on" and when it's "off". If you look at Maryland's regulations, they require a light when the beam is "on" and the light has to be triggered by the physical detection of radiation. If you're interested in doing more comparisons the following is a useful link: http://www.crcpd.org/links.asp#State%20Radiation%20Protection%20Programs %20(U.S.) This is the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors. Inc. site that links to most of the state radiation protection programs. Regards, Ben mailto:ben.morgan@pgnmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of North, David Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 3:35 PM To: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] X-Ray On Lights As far as I know, the practice of mounting lights such as you describe outside x-ray rooms is just that: a practice. But I am always willing to be further educated. Another practice which nowadays is generally discouraged is linking an exposure interrupter to the door. The idea is to prevent someone from becoming inadvertently exposed if he/she opens the door during a radiographic or fluoroscopic procedure. The problem is that while you may prevent a tiny dose to the door-opener, you have interfered with an x-ray exam and possibly necessitated additional (much greater) dose to the poor patient. I can't see why a DEXA scanner would ever need such a light because the stray radiation levels from those units are so low that the tech can sit in the room right next to the scanning couch all day and not even come close to any reasonable ALARA limit. An "X-RAY ON" light outside the SPECT/CT ROOM is a reasonable idea just for the fact that there is a CT scanner in the room. The door shouldn't be locked in case the patient tanks and a code team needs to get in there quickly. David L. North, Sc.M., DABR Associate Physicist Medical Physics Main Bldg. Rm 317 Rhode Island Hospital 593 Eddy St. Providence, RI 02903 (401)444-5961 fax: (401)444-4446 dnorth@lifespan.org From beanboys4 at cableone.net Sat Jun 11 04:19:36 2005 From: beanboys4 at cableone.net (Laird and Diane Bean) Date: Sun Jun 12 21:03:56 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] TLD Equipment Message-ID: <000501c56e2c$039ec3c0$6501a8c0@home9bc733936d> Do you still have the Panasonic UD-716 reader for sale. If so, what is your asking price? From sandyfl at earthlink.net Sat Jun 11 17:31:36 2005 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun Jun 12 21:04:01 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] International Dosimetry and National Records Conference pictures posted Message-ID: <42AACB98.17991.3D55030@localhost> I've posted the first 200 pictures from the 24th International Dosimetry and National Records Conference, sponsored by Panasonic, held at Traverse City, Michigan this week. I'll be posting the rest of the pictures from the Upper Michigan Peninsula a little later. Right now, off to take more pictures! http://sandy-travels.com/traversecity.shtml ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at earthlink.net Sun Jun 12 03:39:29 2005 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun Jun 12 21:04:03 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pictures posted from Mackinac Island, Michigan (day after the Dosimetry and Records Symposium) Message-ID: <42AB5A11.12309.552DBA@localhost> I've posted today's pictures from Mackinac Island. You'll note the drastic changes from sunny to extremely stormy weather. http://sandy-travels.com/mackinacisland.shtml I still have pictures to post from the West Bay, Upper Peninsula. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at earthlink.net Sun Jun 12 03:42:45 2005 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun Jun 12 21:04:18 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pictures posted from Mackinac Island, Michigan (day after Dosimetry and National Records Conference) Message-ID: <42AB5AD5.24685.58289F@localhost> I've posted today's pictures from Mackinac Island. You'll note the drastic changes from sunny to extremely stormy weather. http://sandy-travels.com/mackinacisland.shtml I still have pictures to post from the West Bay, Upper Peninsula. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From mark.ramsay at ionactive.co.uk Sun Jun 12 21:32:21 2005 From: mark.ramsay at ionactive.co.uk (Mark Ramsay) Date: Sun Jun 12 21:32:34 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] WISE Uranium caluclators etc Message-ID: Greetings all Just wondered if any of you had noticed the demise of the WISE uranium calculators etc.? I had featured them on my website at: http://www.ionactive.co.uk/links_listings.html?c=4 A direct link would have been found here: http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/calc.html Tis a pity if they are gone for good as they were a nice free resource with excellent layout. Anyone know where they have gone or if they will feature on another website at some point in the future? Cheers Mark Mark Ramsay MSc, MSRP Radiation Protection Adviser IonActive Consulting Ltd www.ionactive.co.uk mark.ramsay@ionactive.co.uk 0118 3759168 07841 435377 (mobile) 0871 7333945 (fax) IonActive Consulting Ltd 7 Farmers End Charvil Berkshire RG10 9RZ United Kingdom Registered in England & Wales No. 5452329 New Training Course - Rules of Thumb http://www.ionactive.co.uk/training_services.html From sandyfl at earthlink.net Mon Jun 13 01:27:46 2005 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon Jun 13 01:28:06 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pictures posted from West Bay, Upper Peninsula, Michigan (International Dosimetry and National Records Conference) Message-ID: <42AC6282.621.4DE7FEA8@localhost> I've posted the last of the pictures for the recent trip, International Dosimetry and National Records Conference, held this past week at the Grand Travis Resort, Traverse City, Michigan: http://sandy-travels.com/westbay.shtml Pictures from the Health Physics Society, Spokane, Washington, coming in July. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Mon Jun 13 02:21:57 2005 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Mon Jun 13 02:22:06 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pictures posted from West Bay, Upper Peninsula, Michigan (International Dosimetry and National Records Conference) In-Reply-To: <42AC6282.621.4DE7FEA8@localhost> Message-ID: Sandy Thanks for another great set of pectures John _________________ 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: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Sandy Perle Sent: June 12, 2005 4:28 PM To: radsafe Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pictures posted from West Bay, Upper Peninsula,Michigan (International Dosimetry and National Records Conference) I've posted the last of the pictures for the recent trip, International Dosimetry and National Records Conference, held this past week at the Grand Travis Resort, Traverse City, Michigan: http://sandy-travels.com/westbay.shtml Pictures from the Health Physics Society, Spokane, Washington, coming in July. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From sandyfl at earthlink.net Mon Jun 13 03:29:43 2005 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon Jun 13 03:30:14 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Japan To Develop Next-Generation Nuclear Reactor - Kyodo Message-ID: <42AC7F17.19229.4E57A685@localhost> Index: Japan To Develop Next-Generation Nuclear Reactor - Kyodo Dismantling facility involved in Japan's worst nuclear accident Utilities Show Interest in New Nuke Plants Hanford nuclear workers enter site of worst contamination accident PSEG says cause of N.J. nuke leak still unknown Shipment of Radioactive Waste Leaves Ohio Entergy To Ask To Store Nuclear Waste In Dry Casks In Vt. Panel Sets Aside Proposal on Nuclear Waste ========================================= Japan To Develop Next-Generation Nuclear Reactor - Kyodo TOKYO -(Dow Jones)- Japan plans to develop a next-generation version of light water nuclear reactors in pursuit of the world's highest economic efficiency for reactors, Kyodo News reported Friday, citing government sources. The Agency for Natural Resources and Energy will include an expense for a preliminary survey on the development into its budget request for fiscal 2006 starting next April, the sources told Kyodo. Under the Japanese government's first nuclear reactor development program in 20 years, the agency will seek to cut construction and operation costs and radioactive waste by 20% from the present levels to achieve the highest economic efficiency in the world, they said. The agency has asked the Institute of Applied Energy to consider the development since January and has concluded that the government and private sectors should launch the development toward the replacement of existing reactors in the 2020s, the sources said. The agency plans to base the next-generation nuclear reactor on the existing light water type, as a program has been effectively stalled for the development of a fast breeder reactor that could generate electricity while producing more fuel than it consumes, they said. The next-generation nuclear reactors could be exported to the United States, which will also have to replace existing ones, they said. ---------------- Work starts on dismantling facility involved in Japan's worst nuclear accident TOKYO (AP) - The operator of a plant involved in Japan's worst nuclear accident began dismantling the facility on Monday, and said it expects to finish the job by next March. JCO Co., an affiliate of Tokyo-based Sumitomo Metal Mining Co., abandoned its nuclear fuel-reprocessing business in 2003 after losing its license over the 1999 radiation leak that killed two workers. JCO spokesman Hirokazu Miyauchi said some of the parts would be stored onsite in drums after the facility had been dismantled. Though there were still parts with low levels of radiation, all of the highly radioactive uranium fuel had been removed from the site, he said. JCO officials acknowledged that systematic violation of regulations led to the Sept. 30, 1999, accident at the company's Tokai plant, 113 kilometers (70 miles) northeast of Tokyo. It was the worst-ever nuclear mishap in Japan, exposing a total of 439 people to radiation, forcing 161 people to evacuate their homes and another 310,000 to stay indoors for 18 hours as a precaution. Six former top JCO officials were later found guilty of negligence and received suspended prison sentences, and the company agreed to compensate victims of the accident. After being stripped of its license to run the plant in March 2000, JCO had sought to gain regulatory approval to reopen its reprocessing facility but failed. The government approved the company's demolition plans for the Tokai facility last month. ---------------- Utilities Show Interest in New Nuke Plants WASHINGTON (AP) - For two months, Ray Ganthner took to the road, visiting a dozen power companies to find out if his bosses should take a $100 million gamble. Asking executives "eyeball-to-eyeball" about their future generating capacity needs, he wanted to know just how serious utilities were about building a new nuclear power plant in the United States for the first time in three decades. "I was surprised at the consistency of the answers," Ganthner, a Lynchburg, Va.-based senior executive for the French reactor manufacturer, Framatome, said in an interview. Based on what he found, AREVA, Framatome's parent company, is now investing $100 million on U.S. marketing and to get a design certificate from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for its newest reactor, one already being built in Finland. It may be a long shot. Two other manufacturers, Westinghouse and General Electric, have a head start. But the French company's decision to make it a three-way race demonstrates the resurgent interest in nuclear power in the United States, where no new reactor has been ordered since 1973. The 1979 partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, followed by the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl plant in the Ukraine ended any U.S. interest in more reactors beyond those already under construction. Recently a consortium of eight U.S. utilities, called NuStart, announced potential sites where one or more of its members might put a new reactor. Two other American utilities are pursuing separate licensing efforts. While no one has yet committed to construction, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman recently told an industry group, "If all goes well, we could see new plants on line by 2014." Westinghouse Electric Co., a subsidiary of the British company BNFL, already has approval from the NRC for its new 1,000 megawatt AP1000 reactor design and General Electric will submit an application for its 1,500 megawatt ESBWR reactor later this year. Both companies are working hard to line up customers, convinced that electricity demand a decade from now will require more large power plants, and that some will be nuclear. "We think everything is heading in absolutely the right direction," says Vaughn Gilbert, a Westinghouse spokesman. "Nuclear has to be part of the energy picture. We expect the U.S. market will come back and eventually be robust." The new reactors are described as "evolutionary" advancements over the 103 now in operation in 31 states. They basically use the same technology, but with fewer valves, pipes and pumps, and - in the case of Westinghouse and GE - passive safety systems that, if needed, can shut the reactor down and pour in cooling water without human intervention. Other modifications such as setting the radioactive fuel lower into the ground were added in response to post-Sept. 11 worries about terrorism. President Bush has pushed nuclear power as a way to take the pressure off fossil fuels - oil, natural gas and coal. While the United States gets 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors, France meets 78 percent of its electricity needs with nuclear power. Even some environmentalists have abandoned their opposition to nuclear power, arguing it is needed to address climate change because reactors do not produce so-called "greenhouse" gases as do fossil fuels. Other environmentalists are not convinced, citing worries about reactor waste and safety. At the heart of the resurgent interest in nuclear power are the high cost of competing energy sources and improved reactor efficiency. A University of Chicago study concluded that a new fleet of reactors can be expected to produce power as cheaply as coal and natural gas, given's today's prices. "People are getting comfortable with nuclear," Paul Dabber, a vice president for mergers and acquisitions at J.P. Morgan, told a conference on new reactor technology in February. One reason is that existing nuclear power plants have been making profits, he said. Wall Street has long been skeptical about committing $2 billion or more to a new nuclear reactor and investors still consider such a venture risky unless the government provides tax breaks or other incentives to get the first group of reactors started. Without some government help, no new reactors are likely to be built before 2025, says the Energy Information Agency, the government's energy statistical agency. Congress is considering loan guarantees for new-design reactors, and lawmakers are expected to come up with other tax breaks to stoke investor interest. But a Bush proposal to provide "risk insurance" to protect the industry against licensing or legal delays has attracted little interest on Capitol Hill. No one has yet committed to building a new reactor and despite the optimistic rhetoric, utilities are moving toward that decision cautiously. A premature pronouncement about a new reactor could rattle investors and depress a utility's stock, industry experts say. Utilities and investors still remember the pitfalls of long licensing delays that doubled and tripled the cost of many reactors in the 1980s. In one of the biggest cost overruns, the proposed twin-reactor Seabrook plant in New Hampshire was projected to cost $850 million in 1976 and be finished in six years, but ended up costing $7 billion when completed in 1990 even though the second reactor was canceled. "My company lost $5 billion to $10 billion on the last round of nuclear construction," Exelon chairman John Rowe said in a recent speech, explaining why he is approaching new reactor investments with caution. Rowe, whose Chicago-based utility company owns 17 nuclear reactors, more plants than any other utility, also says his company won't invest in a new plant until there is more progress in dealing with reactor waste. A proposed waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has had a string of setbacks and the date for its completion is optimistically put at 2012. Still, Exelon and two other utilities, Dominion and Entergy, have separately applied to the NRC for early site permits for reactors with the idea of shortening the licensing process if a decision is made to go ahead with one. "There is a growing recognition that if we are going to meet our future need for electric energy and also reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases ... we simply must build the next generation of advanced nuclear energy plants," said Marilyn Kray, an Exelon vice president and head of the NuStart consortium. In an interview, she said the goal is to preserve the nuclear option by testing the NRC's streamlined licensing process. Also testing the water is Duke Energy, based in Charlotte, N.C., which, moving on its own, is talking about possibly having a new reactor operating by 2014. Dominion, based in Virginia, also is making plans to seek an NRC reactor construction permit. Neither company has made a final decision. The Energy Department is paying half the cost of the various initial licensing efforts, including an expected $46 million next year. "Adding nuclear capacity ... makes a lot of sense," says Henry "Brew" Barron, in charge of nuclear operations at Duke Power, a subsidiary of Duke Energy that serves 2 million customers in the Carolinas. By 2014, Duke will need at least one more large power plant to meet demand in one of the country's fastest growing regions. Many other utilities around the country are facing similar electricity demands. Once the logjam is broken with the first orders, the U.S. reactor market could become the world's second largest, after China, given expected growth in U.S. electricity demand and environmental and cost concerns about rival fossil fuels, says Andy White, president of GE Energy's nuclear business. "We've probably never had a better situation," White said in an interview, predicting that 60 or more new reactors may be built in the United States over the next 20 to 30 years with several designs finding customers. ------------------ Hanford nuclear workers enter site of worst contamination accident YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - Workers in protective gear Thursday entered a long-sealed room at the Hanford nuclear reservation where the complex's worst contamination accident occurred nearly 29 years ago. The August 1976 explosion contaminated several workers and resulted in one man being dubbed the Atomic Man. Radioactivity levels in the room were so high that Hanford workers only briefly entered a few times after the blast, and the room was sealed in 1989. Thursday's entry began the process of evaluating the room's hazards and marked the next step in cleaning up the nation's most contaminated nuclear site. The room is part of a 63-building complex comprising the Plutonium Finishing Plant. Ten buildings already have been destroyed. The rest are to be ready for demolition by the end of next year. Costs to clean up the entire 586-square-mile Hanford site are expected to total $50 billion to $60 billion, with the work to be completed by 2035. The finishing plant processed plutonium nitrate solutions into metallic form for shipment to nuclear weapons production facilities. An investigation determined the blast was an accident. The explosion blew out the quarter-inch-thick lead glass shielding workers, showering Harold McCluskey, a 64-year-old chemical operator, with nitric acid and radioactive shards of glass. Within minutes, McCluskey inhaled the largest dose of americium-241 ever recorded, about 500 times the occupational standards for the element. Doctors isolated him for five months and injected an experimental drug to flush the isotope from his system. By 1977, his radiation count had fallen by about 80 percent. When McCluskey returned home, friends avoided him and church members shunned him until his minister told people it was safe to sit with him, according to newspaper accounts. He died of natural causes in 1987 at age 75. ----------------- PSEG says cause of N.J. nuke leak still unknown LOS ANGELES, June 10 (Reuters) - PSEG Nuclear said on Friday that the source of a leak which shut the 1,049-megawatt Hope Creek nuclear power plant in New Jersey earlier this week has been found but the cause is still under investigation. "We have found the source of the leak," a spokesman said, noting a shutdown cooling check valve had broken off. "The cause of the breakage is still under investigation." PSEG Nuclear is a unit of Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. . The spokesman said the failed device had been sent to a laboratory to analyze why it broke, noting similar installations would also be examined as part of an extended condition review. The unit shut on June 7. Electricity traders said the cause of the breakage could be fatigue, in which case operators would have to determine why preventative maintenance did not spot the problem in advance. It could also have been accidentally damaged during repairs to nearby components, they noted. PSEG declined to estimate the length of the outage. Traders said the unit could be off-line for about two weeks. The Hope Creek station is located in Hancocks Bridge in Salem County about 40 miles south of Philadelphia. One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American average. Exelon Nuclear, a unit of Chicago-based energy company Exelon Corp.'s Exelon Generation Co LLC subsidiary, operates the station for PSEG. ---------------- Shipment of Radioactive Waste Leaves Ohio CINCINNATI (AP) - About 40,000 pounds of radioactive waste from a long-closed uranium-processing plant were loaded onto a flatbed truck Monday for a 1,300-mile journey to storage. It was the first Texas-bound shipment of Cold War-era waste being cleaned up at the former Fernald plant just outside Cincinnati after neighbors fought for year to get rid of it and the government struggled to find a place to take it. "I'm glad it's going," said Lisa Crawford, president of the Fernald Residents for Environmental Safety and Health. "But wherever it goes, it needs to stay there." In April, Waste Control Specialists of Dallas won a $7.5 million contract to store the material after earlier plans to take it to Utah and Nevada fell through because of opposition. The waste will be transported in 2,000 shipments to Andrews, Texas, near the New Mexico line, in large, sealed containers. Shipments of the estimated 45,000 tons of waste should be completed within nine or 10 months. About 15 truckloads a day will leave Fernald at the peak of the shipping process, said Jeff Wagner, a spokesman for Fluor Fernald, the Energy Department contractor cleaning up the site. "The material does not pose a great risk to humans, and there are things coming across the interstates every day that would be higher up on the security radar screen than a radioactive concrete block," Wagner said. The Ohio plant processed and purified uranium metal for use in reactors that produced plutonium for nuclear weapons from the 1950s until 1989. Eighty-five percent of the site's other wastes are to be permanently stored at Fernald. The more radioactive silo wastes being shipped to Texas are part of the 15 percent to be sent elsewhere under the cleanup plan. ---------------- Entergy To Ask To Store Nuclear Waste In Dry Casks In Vt. BRATTLEBORO, Vt. (AP)--The company that owns the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant expects within a few weeks to make a formal request to the Public Service Board to store highly radioactive nuclear waste in dry casks on the plant's grounds in Vernon. Robert Williams, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear (ETR), said that would be the next step now that the Vermont Legislature has passed a law authorizing Entergy to make the request to the three-member PSB. The case could take a year or longer, depending on the number of parties the board allows to intervene. Williams said the company was studying the new state law in order to incorporate its terms into the application it must make to the board. The company already has filed its request with the Windham Regional Commission, which it is required to do before going to the PSB. Jim Matteau, executive director of the regional commission, said he was bothered that the new law does not require Entergy to come back to get lawmakers' OK before trying to extend the plant's license beyond its 2012 expiration date. "There's not going to be public discussion about re-licensing. There will be a Public Service Board proceeding, but that's not really accessible to the public, " he said. Members of the public may attend the board hearings, but only parties officially involved in the case can participate. Supporters of the bill argued that legislative approval would be required for storing any nuclear waste generated by operations continuing past 2012, effectively giving lawmakers a say in relicensing. Both the regional commission and the nuclear watchdog group New England Coalition have been parties in the ongoing PSB case on Vermont Yankee's bid to boost its power output by 20%. Both are also expected to be parties in the dry- cask storage case. Vermont Yankee officials say they're running out of room to store spent nuclear fuel in a pool of water inside the plant for that purpose. They say that to continue operating after 2008, they need to begin storing the spent fuel in concrete and steel casks on the plant's grounds. --------------------- Panel Sets Aside Proposal on Nuclear Waste WASHINGTON (AP) - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has put on hold a proposal to allow some very low-level radioactive waste to be routinely put into public landfills or recycled instead of shipped to special disposal sites. By a 5-0 vote, the commission decided against issuing a final regulation on the matter, although it did not rule out considering the issue again in the future. The agency's staff had recommended that the rule change be approved, saying the waste under consideration has such a low level of radioactivity that it does not pose a public health risk. The NRC acted earlier this week, but the vote only became public Friday in a news release from several environmental and nuclear industry watchdog groups. The groups applauded the action, saying the proposed rule change would have allowed radioactive material to be mixed with normal garbage and reused in consumer products and in roadbeds. NRC spokesman Elliott Brenner, confirming the commission's action, said the agency did not reject the proposal outright. "It is in a holding pattern because of higher priorities. That's not to rule out looking at it again later," he said. "Most of these materials have no residual radioactivity," he said. "Some have very small amounts, so low that potential exposure to the public would have negligible impact." Brenner said the commission decided to put the issue aside because of the "urgent need to put resources in higher priority areas" such as nuclear power plant security and a rush of applications for power reactor relicensing. The material subject to the proposed rule change is located at nuclear power plants and other facilities licensed by the NRC and includes such items as office furniture, tools, equipment, routine trash, soil and concrete. Diane D'Arrigo of the Nuclear Information and Resources Service, a watchdog group, said the NRC's decision is "a victory for public health and environmental protection," although she expressed concern that the agency might reverse course. "The NRC clearly backed down from this crazy idea because it recognized the firestorm of public concern that would be triggered," said Daniel Hirsch, head of the Los Angeles-based Community to Bridge the Gap. "The public doesn't want radioactive waste in their local garbage dump, children's braces or tools." ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From james at bovik.org Mon Jun 13 08:48:40 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Mon Jun 13 08:49:02 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] LA Times: Nuclear Waste Outpaces Solutions Message-ID: <42AD2C48.8000009@bovik.org> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-waste12jun12,1,3704797.story Nuclear Waste Outpaces Solutions Plants use outdoor storage casks while waiting for the government to find a longer-term solution. Some fear it won't. by Ralph Vartabedian Staff Writer Los Angeles Times June 12, 2005 MORRIS, Ill. ? Along the headwaters of the Illinois River, engineers at the Dresden nuclear power station have erected two dozen steel and concrete silos that rise 20 feet above the Midwest plain. The gray structures are unremarkable except for what is loaded inside: Each contains roughly 13 tons of high-level nuclear waste that has been accumulating at the plant since the Eisenhower administration. With nowhere to go, the waste will most likely remain in place for decades. Dresden's reactors have produced one of the largest stockpiles ? 1,347 tons ? of civilian nuclear waste in the nation. With the plant churning out nearly 48 tons more waste each year, engineers are preparing to double the size of the outdoor storage pad this summer. The plant has the same problem as nearly all of the nation's 103 commercial reactors: They were never designed to store waste long-term and are now forced to deal with large quantities of spent uranium fuel rods that produce high levels of radiation. The problem reflects decades of miscalculations and missteps by the federal government, which promised at the dawn of the nuclear age to accept ownership of the waste. The plan to build a waste repository at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert has faced so many political, legal and technical problems that it's impossible to project when ? or even if ? it will be built. As a result, the most lethal waste product of industrial society is being handled outside any federal policy and without any roadmap for how it will be managed in the future, according to industry officials, nuclear waste experts, lawyers and academicians. "It is a statement of reality," acknowledges Clay Sell, deputy secretary of Energy. "Is it the right policy? No." The deep storage pools traditionally used to safely keep nuclear waste are filling up at most plants. Utilities have turned to outdoor storage in so-called dry casks as the de facto standard for dealing with waste. From California to South Carolina, utilities have loaded 700 of the steel and concrete casks, and scores of additional casks are scheduled to be filled this year. It is a stopgap measure that has averted a shutdown of the nuclear power industry. But it means leaving all of the roughly 50,000 tons of civilian nuclear waste spread across the nation for the next half-century or more. And storing the waste at power plant sites is creating significant economic, environmental, legal and security challenges ? including the potential for it to become a terrorist target. A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences found that the waste stored in pools was most vulnerable, but the outdoor casks also were potential targets. Such an attack could trigger an environmental catastrophe. "These are the ultimate dirty bombs," said Bob Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and a former Energy Department official. "Let's not pretend the way we are storing this waste is safe and secure in an age of terrorism." Utility executives and government officials sharply dispute such allegations, saying the plants have multiple layers of protection from any attack. Exelon Corp., the nation's largest nuclear utility, has erected heavy barriers and security towers at Dresden that are staffed around the clock by guards with automatic weapons. Though the nuclear industry has a good record for preventing radiation leaks during normal operations and dry casks are widely regarded as safe, many outside experts say their biggest fear is that future generations may lack the willpower and financial capability to safeguard tons of radioactive waste dispersed across the nation. Waste is already stored in casks at five shuttered nuclear plant sites. "We are muddling into an alternative plan by default," says Joe Egan, a longtime attorney for the nuclear industry who now represents Nevada in fighting Yucca Mountain. Nuclear waste has also created a legal mess. The Energy Department is facing more than four dozen lawsuits by the utility industry for its failure to take the waste. Damages could reach $56 billion over the next three decades, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, a powerful trade group for nuclear utilities. At the Department of Energy, Sell argues that deep geologic storage of the waste at Yucca Mountain would be the best technical solution. He believes the project will eventually be completed. But the loss of a key court case last year and political resistance in Congress have put the dump at least 14 years behind schedule. Without a dump, utilities have few options short of shutting down their reactors and eliminating 20% of the U.S. electricity supply that comes from nuclear power. And without a solution to waste, the proposal by President Bush to start a new era of nuclear plant construction could go nowhere. Indefinite storage of nuclear waste at current reactor sites is a bitter pill for many politicians, particularly those from environmentally fragile areas such as Lake Michigan, which is ringed by nuclear plants. "I want the waste off the shores of Lake Michigan," said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), whose district includes two nuclear plants built on the lake's eastern boundary. "Ultimately, there is a safety problem." Nuclear waste at power plants will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. The fission of uranium inside reactors produces heat for electricity production. Afterward, the uranium fuel rods are far more radioactive than when they entered the reactor. To maximize storage capacity for the spent fuel rods, the nuclear industry devised a way to pack them more closely in the 50-foot-deep storage pools than initially planned. Critics say this kind of dense packing poses a safety risk, however. If terrorists were to puncture the pool wall and drain the water, the rods could ignite and disperse lethal amounts of radiation, according to a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences. Even with dense packing, the pools are running out of space. Twenty years ago, nuclear plants began removing the oldest fuel rods, which have radioactively decayed somewhat, and started storing them in massive outdoor storage casks like the ones at Dresden. Officials at Nuclear Regulatory Commission "anticipate that there will be an increase in the number of casks being loaded over the next few years," said E. William Brach, director of the commission's spent fuel project office. The logistics of nuclear waste ensure it will be around a long time. Even if the federal government gets a license to operate Yucca Mountain, the earliest it could accept waste shipments would be 2012. By that year, more than 60,000 tons of civilian nuclear waste would be spread across about three dozen states. It would take about 50 years to work down the backlog, according to Frank von Hippel, a nuclear expert at Princeton University and former White House national security advisor. That's because under current plans Yucca could process a maximum of 3,000 tons of waste annually, while nuclear power plants would be generating 2,000 new tons of waste each year. That means a net reduction of just 1,000 tons each year, he said. "We have to assume that these casks will be around for a very long time," Von Hippel said. "It will take quite a while to move them, even if we had someplace to send them today." In any case, "on the day Yucca Mountain opens" it would be too small to handle all the waste, acknowledges Sell, the Energy Department official. There is no Plan B. Under federal law, the department can pursue only Yucca Mountain. Further complicating matters are the divided lines of authority between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Energy Department. The commission regulates waste at plant sites and authorizes dry cask storage but has no role in national policy for disposing of nuclear waste. That policy responsibility rests with the Energy Department, which has no voice or authority in the use of dry casks. In the vacuum, a private consortium is planning to build an above-ground storage site for hundreds of casks on an Indian reservation in Utah. Despite state opposition, it is getting approval from the nuclear commission. Meanwhile, utilities see dry cask storage as a cheap and safe, if not permanent, solution. Holtec International, one of the leading suppliers, says its casks can safely store waste for at least 100 years without leaking, according to company marketing manager Joy Russell. The regulatory commission typically licenses the casks for 20 years but last year renewed Dominion Electric's license for 40 years, another signal that the waste would remain in place for a long time. Holtec's casks are constructed of two concentric rings of 1-inch-thick steel, separated by 27 inches of concrete that is poured at the power plant site. The casks sit on 2-foot-thick concrete pads, requiring no electricity, water or instrumentation. Inside, the spent fuel continues to radioactively decay, generating heat that is vented out the sides. The only maintenance involves periodic painting and keeping up the radioactive warning labels on the steel shells. On the inside of the casks, the waste is so radioactive it would deliver a fatal dose in minutes, but the outside can be touched. "An individual can stand right next to the cask," Brach said. "There is a dose, but it is a minimal dose." There have been some relatively minor accidents around the nation involving the casks, including one case in which a welding spark ignited hydrogen gas inside a cask. The ignition dislodged the cask's lid but did not cause other damage. Antinuclear groups, such as the Washington-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service and the Chicago-based Nuclear Energy Information Service, say the casks should be better protected. In Germany, for example, the casks are inside hardened buildings. Government tests at the Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland showed that a shoulder-fired missile could penetrate a cask wall, causing some radioactive fuel to disperse. "We don't want this 10-pin bowling alley out in the open," said Dave Kraft, an antinuclear activist for more than 20 years. "Anybody with a shoulder-fired missile could hit one of these things from outside the plant." Though utilities defend the safety of the casks, they also are demanding that the federal government take the waste. Exelon, formerly Commonwealth Edison, filed one of the 56 suits against the Energy Department when the agency failed to meet its legal commitment to open Yucca Mountain by 1998. It is the only company to settle so far, accepting $600 million for its costs over the next 10 years, according to Adam H. Levin, Exelon director of spent fuel. "We expect at some time that the Energy Department will perform," he said. Across the river from the Dresden plant in the Village of Channahon, a residential building boom is occurring, attracting people who make the hour-and-a-half commute to jobs in Chicago. "You can see the nuclear waste right across the river," said Joe Petrovic, who lives in a subdivision near the plant and builds homes in the area for a living. "The plant hasn't scared anyone from buying a home there." The plant is in Grundy County, which has three nuclear power plants as well as a large independent waste storage pool operated by General Electric Co. It probably has more nuclear waste than any county in the nation, though such statistics are not kept by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "I don't see the casks as a problem," said Grundy County Administrator Alfred Bourdelais. "Maybe in 200 or 300 years, but today there isn't any more risk from those casks than there is from the plant, and it has a really low risk." Such local acceptance of cask storage worries experts who say that in the future the casks will become a poor permanent solution. Kevin Crowley, a nuclear expert at the National Academy of Sciences who helped guide an investigation into the vulnerability of spent fuel storage, said the casks would become a risky legacy if left in place too long. "The major uncertainty," he said, "is in the confidence that future societies will continue to monitor and maintain such facilities." From michael.g.stabin at Vanderbilt.Edu Mon Jun 13 15:17:40 2005 From: michael.g.stabin at Vanderbilt.Edu (Stabin, Michael) Date: Mon Jun 13 15:17:53 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] LA Times: Nuclear Waste Outpaces Solutions Message-ID: >Each contains roughly 13 tons of high-level nuclear waste that has been accumulating at the plant since the Eisenhower administration. With nowhere to go, the waste will most likely remain in place for decades. >The problem reflects decades of miscalculations and missteps by the federal government, which promised at the dawn of the nuclear age to accept ownership of the waste. The plan to build a waste repository at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert has faced so many political, legal and technical problems that it's impossible to project when - or even if - it will be built. As a result, the most lethal waste product of industrial society is being handled outside any federal policy and without any roadmap for how it will be managed in the future, according to industry officials, nuclear waste experts, lawyers and academicians. >But the loss of a key court case last year and political resistance in Congress have put the dump at least 14 years behind schedule. >"We don't want this 10-pin bowling alley out in the open," said Dave Kraft, an antinuclear activist for more than 20 years. "Anybody with a shoulder-fired missile could hit one of these things from outside the plant." "Miscalculations and missteps" is not accurate. The federal government did a reasonably good job of siting this facility and planning for its use. In hindsight, flaws can always be found. The main issue here is the irresponsible and immoral political gamesmanship practiced by anti-nuclear activists (including former President Clinton) to throw any and all roadblocks at the disposal scenario, just to hurt the industry, regardless of the implications for public safety. Now we are stuck with a plan that is clearly more likely to result in unwanted exposure of the public and the environment than if the waste had been stored as planned at Yucca. "Human health and safety? We don't care about that, we have a political game to win here." That is what is so aggravating about their posturing at the microphone, pretending to care about safety. We see ultimately that it is only a political fight to win or lose, and the best interests of society are nowhere on their list of items of importance. Mike Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences Vanderbilt University 1161 21st Avenue South Nashville, TN 37232-2675 Phone (615) 343-0068 Fax (615) 322-3764 Pager (615) 835-5153 e-mail michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu internet www.doseinfo-radar.com From Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil Mon Jun 13 16:02:22 2005 From: Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil (Falo, Gerald A Dr KADIX) Date: Mon Jun 13 16:02:50 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] WISE Uranium caluclators etc Message-ID: <357F1A279A378A408DFDF7B82794EF0201595E91@AMEDMLNARMC138.amed.ds.army.mil> All, After a little poking around, I found the calculators at: http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/calc.html#DRC Jerry ________________________________ The statements and opinions expressed herein are my responsibility; no one else (certainly not my employer) is responsible, but I still reserve the right to make mistakes. Don't panic! - Douglas Adams in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP Kadix Systems U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine - Health Physics Program jerry.falo@us.army.mil 410-436-4852 From elam24 at wp.pl Sat Jun 11 13:29:22 2005 From: elam24 at wp.pl (elam24) Date: Mon Jun 13 16:17:30 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Davidson model 2056-4K-A MCA Message-ID: <001701c56e78$d0f1b700$0100a8c0@ROGER> Hello, I recently repaired my MCA 2056-4K-A and know little about it construction, Probably you problem locate in DC/DC power supply: that is: missing +5V voltage. First You should check voltages on supply connector : 10 pin conector : pin No. wire colour voltage comment 1 WHT depend charge or not from charger 2 GRY ca 12v from battery 3 PUR +12V DC/DC stabilised 4 ORG +5V DC/DC stabilised Logic supply 5 BLK 0V GND 6 BLU -12V DC/DC stabilised 7 YEL ca +12V non stabilised CRT Display supply 8 BRN 0V GND 9 BRN 0V GND 10 BRN 0V GND ( measure DVM between appropriate pin and pin No 5 (BLK GND) If you have any question plese ask me on elam24@wp.pl Im also interested on manual to this MCA could You send me a copy ?? Im sorry for my poor english. Rafal From mwp at lanl.gov Mon Jun 13 15:58:02 2005 From: mwp at lanl.gov (Michael Pearson) Date: Mon Jun 13 16:18:29 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] ICS-4000 Radionuclide Identifier Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050613075649.03596f40@norris-mail.lanl.gov> Hi, We use the ICS for source recovery operations - it is very good for field ID of Am-241 and plutonium in a mixed field, even with high neutron counts. In the environments we use it in, sensitivity is not an issue. Feel free to contact me if you need more information. Mike M. W. Pearson, CHP On-Site Ops Tm Ldr Off-Site Source Recovery Project N-2 Advanced Nuclear Technology MS J552 TA 46 Bldg 231 PHONE 505-665-0483 CELL 505-699-9411 FAX 505-665-7913 From davidhelton1 at bellsouth.net Mon Jun 13 17:14:34 2005 From: davidhelton1 at bellsouth.net (davidhelton1@bellsouth.net) Date: Mon Jun 13 17:14:47 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Mobile phones riskier in the countryside? Message-ID: <20050613151434.MGCD4468.ibm61aec.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net> > > From: "Bjorn Cedervall" > Date: 2005/06/02 Thu AM 09:19:08 EDT > To: radsafe@radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Mobile phones riskier in the countryside? > > Suggested reading: > http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAB7F.htm > > My personal action only, > > Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers@hotmail.com > > Let?s put things in perspective. The risk from any radiation emitted from cell phones is very minimal compared to other health risk caused by their use. A number of states have laws that prohibit their use while driving. The reason for these laws is that people driving and concentrating on the discussion are more likely to be involved or cause a car accident. The use of cell phones while walking is another hazard. Consider the discussion (perhaps a divorce discussion) and you are concentrating or very upset and walk out into traffic and get hit by a motor vehicle. Consider you are working at home and lose a finger to a saw. There are many other examples where people have suffered a physical effect from cell phone use not related to the radiation emitted from the phone or associated equipment. I realize this a radiation forum, but things need to be put into perspective. These other risk should be pointed out because their likelihood is very much greater, perhaps a 100,000 times greater, than any radiation risk causing cancer or other effects on the body. David K. Helton > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Mon Jun 13 17:45:26 2005 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto G. Raabe) Date: Mon Jun 13 17:45:58 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] WISE Uranium calculators In-Reply-To: <357F1A279A378A408DFDF7B82794EF0201595E91@AMEDMLNARMC138.am ed.ds.army.mil> References: <357F1A279A378A408DFDF7B82794EF0201595E91@AMEDMLNARMC138.amed.ds.army.mil> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050613084244.035f7080@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 07:02 AM 6/13/2005, Falo, Gerald A Dr KADIX wrote: >After a little poking around, I found the calculators at: >http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/calc.html#DRC ************************************************************* The risk estimates given by the uranium calculator at based on hypothetical (imaginary) linear mathematical models that may be in error as much as 100% at low exposure levels. Otto ********************************************** Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP Center for Health & the Environment (Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road) University of California, Davis, CA 95616 E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140 *********************************************** From frantaj at aecl.ca Mon Jun 13 18:04:47 2005 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Mon Jun 13 18:05:01 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] WISE Uranium calculators - related question Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A3CE@sps13.aecl.ca> Otto G. Raabe wrote: The risk estimates given by the uranium calculator at based on hypothetical (imaginary) linear mathematical models that may be in error as much as 100% at low exposure levels. ********************************************** Presumably the same could be said about other alpha emitters, like Pu, Am, etc. In an earlier post I asked about ICRP's calculation of the Water Dilution Volumes (WDVs) required to meet regulatory safety limits for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) disposal (or long-term storage). Specifically, in calculating the WDVs as a function of time following discharge of SNF from a reactor, and plotting that curve on a graph that also shows the horizontal reference line for U-ore, Eisenbud says ("Environmental Radioactivity," 4th Ed.) that the big difference in x-over points between NRC (<1000y) and ICRP (>10,000y) is due mainly to the Np237 change in absorption factors for transfer from the intestines to blood, which ICRP changed in its Part 2 of Publication 30 (1979 - 1988), and which US agencies (NRC) later adopted. One might think that it should be a straight forward calculation to compare radiotoxicity vs time for SNF and U-ore. But that's obviously not the case, since the x-over point moves around by orders of magnitude, depending on the assumed absorption factors and, more importantly, whether one applies LNT to very low dose levels. Does anyone know what the WDV curve for SNF would look like if an appropriate, threshold-type dose-response relationship were applied in place of LNT ? What is the HPS's position on this ? ....RSH ? Thanks very much. Jaro Franta, P.Eng. Tel.: (514) 875-3444 Montr?al, Qu?bec frantaj@aecl.ca web master, CNS Qu?bec branch: http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/quebec/quebec.html <><><><><><><><><><><> CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com Mon Jun 13 18:33:18 2005 From: Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com (Flanigan, Floyd) Date: Mon Jun 13 18:34:05 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Mobile phones riskier in the countryside? Message-ID: <9B9410BB35BC3443BEA0369E880B0BA501323EBC@piex01.pi.nmcco.net> Good point David. There are times when the primary risk is overlooked due to the media potential of another risk i.e. nuclear vs industrial. Floyd W.Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P. Post Script Hey Dave ... How's things? -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl]On Behalf Of davidhelton1@bellsouth.net Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 10:15 AM To: Bjorn Cedervall; radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mobile phones riskier in the countryside? > > From: "Bjorn Cedervall" > Date: 2005/06/02 Thu AM 09:19:08 EDT > To: radsafe@radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Mobile phones riskier in the countryside? > > Suggested reading: > http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAB7F.htm > > My personal action only, > > Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers@hotmail.com > > Let's put things in perspective. The risk from any radiation emitted from cell phones is very minimal compared to other health risk caused by their use. A number of states have laws that prohibit their use while driving. The reason for these laws is that people driving and concentrating on the discussion are more likely to be involved or cause a car accident. The use of cell phones while walking is another hazard. Consider the discussion (perhaps a divorce discussion) and you are concentrating or very upset and walk out into traffic and get hit by a motor vehicle. Consider you are working at home and lose a finger to a saw. There are many other examples where people have suffered a physical effect from cell phone use not related to the radiation emitted from the phone or associated equipment. I realize this a radiation forum, but things need to be put into perspective. These other risk should be pointed out because their likelihood is very much greater, perhaps a 100,000 times greater, than any radiation risk causing cancer or other effects on the body. David K. Helton > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From hshackford at yahoo.com Mon Jun 13 20:58:15 2005 From: hshackford at yahoo.com (Hobie Shackford) Date: Mon Jun 13 20:58:26 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RSO Job Opening Message-ID: <20050613185815.94908.qmail@web52108.mail.yahoo.com> The Roger Williams Medical Center has an RSO position available. The Medical Center is a broad scope medical licensee in the state of Rhode Island and thus the candidate must meet the state training and experience requiements, which is basically certification in Health Physics or Medical Physics. Roger Williams Medical Center is an exceptional academic community medical center committed to excellence in patient care that is affiliated with Boston University School of Medicine. Although the job is not yet posted on the web you can find out more about the hospital at http://www.rwmc.org/index.htm For more specific information about the position contact: Diane Sunderland Human Resources Department 825 Chalkstone Ave. Providence, RI 02908 (401) 456-2094 dsunderland@rwmc.org Hobie Shackford --------------------------------- Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out! From james at bovik.org Mon Jun 13 21:52:33 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Mon Jun 13 21:52:59 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] WISE Uranium caluclators etc Message-ID: <42ADE401.40607@bovik.org> So, inhaling 5 grams of depleted uranium trioxide, or about 20 times the LD50/30 for rabbits, results in only a 182 mrem exposure, according to the calculator, without any mention at all of the chemical toxicity. And people can't understand why I don't think it's such a great idea to "merely" have radiation safety professionals in charge of exposure decisions for heavy metals. Sincerely, James Salsman Copied from http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/rdcu.html : -- Inhalation, using dose coefficients from ICRP 72 (public) -- 5 g UO3 of natural uranium (depleted to 0.2 wt% U-235 from enrichment to 3.5 wt% U-235) (single exposure) Delay 0 years: Dose: 182.1 mSv Delay 1 years: Dose: 182.5 mSv From JGinniver at aol.com Mon Jun 13 23:01:42 2005 From: JGinniver at aol.com (JGinniver@aol.com) Date: Mon Jun 13 23:01:57 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] WISE Uranium caluclators etc Message-ID: <1ff.392e494.2fdf4e36@aol.com> In a message dated 13/06/2005 20:57:03 GMT Standard Time, james@bovik.org writes: So, inhaling 5 grams of depleted uranium trioxide, or about 20 times the LD50/30 for rabbits, results in only a 182 mrem exposure, according to the calculator, without any mention at all of the chemical toxicity. James you might want to check your math. I might work in these new fangled units of mSv and have never had to use rem in my work, but I always thought that 182 mSv was actually 18.2 rem. please let me know if I'm wrong :-) And people can't understand why I don't think it's such a great idea to "merely" have radiation safety professionals in charge of exposure decisions for heavy metals. Hmmm, again I must have missed something over the years I always thought that WISE was a watchdog (always sound much nicer than anti-nuclear) organisation that had spent a lot of time and effort to convince people that Nuclear energy was bad for people and the environment and people, including everything to do with the Uranium fuel cycle and the use of depleted uranium. Maybe they've seen the light and all become radiation safety professionals and have decided to downplay the risks of exposure to depleted uranium and all of the other by-products of nuclear energy :-) I don't know what their friends in the NIRS would say about that - see below for links to the WISE site on Uranium and the NIRS home page which appears proud to highlight their links with WISE (World Information Service on Energy) _http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/wise/uranium/index.html#INTRO_ (http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/wise/uranium/index.html#INTRO) _http://www.nirs.org/_ (http://www.nirs.org/) If I'm mistaken about any of the above James please let me know. Regards, Julian Sincerely, James Salsman Copied from http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/rdcu.html : -- Inhalation, using dose coefficients from ICRP 72 (public) -- 5 g UO3 of natural uranium (depleted to 0.2 wt% U-235 from enrichment to 3.5 wt% U-235) (single exposure) Delay 0 years: Dose: 182.1 mSv Delay 1 years: Dose: 182.5 mSv From paksbi at rit.edu Mon Jun 13 23:23:12 2005 From: paksbi at rit.edu (A Karam) Date: Mon Jun 13 23:23:23 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] WISE Uranium caluclators etc Message-ID: <8C7AD67141A06D499823B280003E6C02EDF15D@svits11.main.ad.rit.edu> Presumably the chemical toxicity is thought to be obvious since the intended users (i.e. radiation safety professionals) are well aware of the lack of risk associated with exposure to 182 mrem. Mr. Salsman - your comments suggest that what is fairly common knowledge among radiation safety professionals is new and shocking to you. Your comments might gain a somewhat better reception if you submit them as questions, asked so that you can improve your knowledge of an interesting subject. Unfortunately, it is all too easy to read your comments as indictments of personnel working in a field about which you seem to have little direct knowledge or understanding. You also seem to go under the assumption that everyone is trying to hide, or to get away with something - this is rude, to say the least. It also suggests that everyone should, perhaps, assume that you are as dishonest as those you accuse. We tend to see in others what we think we see in ourselves - those that seem most suspicious of others often seem to have the most to hide. I know it is an American conceit that a self-trained person might be able to somehow "beat" the experts. Our media is replete with stories of garage mechanics whose inventions have been suppressed by the oil companies or the auto manufacturers or the government. I've lost track of the phone calls I've taken from well-intentioned people who are convinced they've discovered a scientific "truth" that the experts have somehow missed. This phenomenon is treated at some length in Park's book, Voodoo Science. The experts are not always right, but enthusiastic and well-intentioned amateurs are right even less frequently. Sadly, in most cases, the self-made "experts" often seem to be pushing an agenda or self-aggrandizement rather than a scientific revolution. In my experience, most people (including scientists, regulators, and even reporters) are straight-forward and honest. Although I have heard of scientists who have purposely altered or supressed data for a specific purpose, I have never met one in person - the number of scientists who participate in such fraud is very small. In fact, the great majority of scientists will walk away from a hypothesis, even one in which they have invested a serious amount of work, when confronted by evidence that shows them to have been wrong. This experience is contrary to speculations and accusations in many of the postings on this list-server; this suggests that either I am hopelessly optimistic about human nature, or that those postulating some conspiracy aimed at hiding the "truth" see humanity as far more ignoble than seems to be the case. In fact, the number of people of any persuasion who participate in fraud is very small; certainly far smaller than is suggested in so many postings. Anyone is, of course, free to post what they will. They are also free to read others' postings with whatever degree of belief they choose. I would submit, however, that all should try reading postings with an open mind and not with the assumption that the person must be lying or dissembling if they say something that does not fit with pre-conceived notions. If one's only purpose in posting to the list as a whole is to insult others, to call them liars, to cast aspersions on their character, or to speculate about conspiracies to hide the "truth", perhaps they should consider whether or not this is a list to which they really want to belong. My understanding is that this list is supposed to be devoted to asking question and sharing information about radiation-related topics. I'm sure there is a conspiracy list-server somewhere, which may be a better forum for other postings. Andy P. Andrew Karam, Ph.D., CHP From don.mercado at lmco.com Mon Jun 13 23:53:04 2005 From: don.mercado at lmco.com (Mercado, Don) Date: Mon Jun 13 23:53:11 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RF Safety Standards Message-ID: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE81F594@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> Greetings all, I'm in the midst of rewriting RF safety standards for our company. I'm trying to use the IEEE C95.1, 1999 Edition std. to do that. An objection to the use of separate "controlled" vs. uncontrolled" area exposure limits has arisen, and I'm supposed to find out what other companies are doing with that concept. So, if you would be so kind, please tell me what you are doing with the following in your RF safety standards: 1) Are you using the IEEE C95.1 Standard as your RF safety guide? 2) Do you define "controlled" and "uncontrolled" areas and have separate exposure limits for each? 3) Do you put the exposure limit tables (Table 1 and Table 2 in the IEEE Std.) verbatim into your standards? Please reply to me in private. Thank you in advance. Donald P. Mercado Radiation Safety Officer Explosives Safety Officer Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company O/9K-2S, B/157 1111 Lockheed Martin Way Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Ph. (408) 742-0759 Fx. (408) 756-0504 Don.Mercado@lmco.com "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- WOW!!! -- What a Ride!!!" From james at bovik.org Tue Jun 14 00:13:57 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Tue Jun 14 00:14:17 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] WISE Uranium caluclators etc In-Reply-To: <31F03DC34C82D611A10600065B8867640B74F14C@UMARL01EX1A> References: <31F03DC34C82D611A10600065B8867640B74F14C@UMARL01EX1A> Message-ID: <42AE0525.6090508@bovik.org> Yes, I'm wrong; I was doing uranyl nitrate, got much less radiation, switched to the same quantity of UO3, and missed that the decimal point had jumped two places. Beyond that I was using the LD50/30 for uranyl nitrate, too. -- Inhalation, using dose coefficients from ICRP 72 (public) -- 5 g UO2(NO3)2 of natural uranium (depleted to 0.2 wt% U-235 from enrichment to 3.5 wt% U-235) (single exposure) Delay 0 years: Dose: 22.51 mSv Delay 1 years: Dose: 22.62 mSv == 2.3 rem Sincerely, James Salsman SHELTON Christopher A wrote: > I validated your representation of the WISE code result of 182 mSv exposure > from this type of exposure. However, your statement about "only a 182 mrem > exposure" is about as wrong as can be. Perhaps you didn't notice that mSv > is not mrem (typo?). 182 mSv corresponds to 18,200 mrem exposure (or 18.2 > rem). As I read NRC regulations, this is about 4 times the legal limit for > a radiation worker. For any member of the public, it would be ~180 times > the legal limit. > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf > Of James Salsman > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:53 PM > To: radsafe@radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] WISE Uranium caluclators etc > > > So, inhaling 5 grams of depleted uranium trioxide, or about > 20 times the LD50/30 for rabbits, results in only a 182 mrem exposure, > according to the calculator, without any mention at all of the chemical > toxicity. > > And people can't understand why I don't think it's such a > great idea to "merely" have radiation safety professionals > in charge of exposure decisions for heavy metals. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > > Copied from http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/rdcu.html : > > -- Inhalation, using dose coefficients from ICRP 72 (public) -- > > 5 g UO3 of natural uranium > (depleted to 0.2 wt% U-235 from enrichment to 3.5 wt% U-235) > > (single exposure) > > Delay 0 years: Dose: 182.1 mSv > Delay 1 years: Dose: 182.5 mSv > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the > RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From james at bovik.org Tue Jun 14 00:38:19 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Tue Jun 14 00:38:33 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] questions of honesty (was Re: WISE Uranium....) In-Reply-To: <8C7AD67141A06D499823B280003E6C02EDF15D@svits11.main.ad.rit.edu> References: <8C7AD67141A06D499823B280003E6C02EDF15D@svits11.main.ad.rit.edu> Message-ID: <42AE0ADB.3060406@bovik.org> Andy Karam wrote: >.... it is all too easy to read your > comments as indictments of personnel working in a field about which you > seem to have little direct knowledge or understanding. You also seem to > go under the assumption that everyone is trying to hide, or to get away > with something - this is rude, to say the least.... Those are legitimate points that I have been neglecting. There is probably no way to know for sure, but I think it's quite likely that almost everyone in the health physics profession who might raise the points I have been raising would put at least their reputation (if it all turns out, after empirical investigation, to be unfounded concerns) and at most their job security at risk. Those are very good reasons that credentials are not required to submit such accusations. I think it's important to air the accusations here. You've suggested that I should ask questions, but what happened when I asked questions about the production of gaseous UO3 from uranium combustion in air? They were met with calls for censorship and shunning. >... In my experience, most people (including scientists, regulators, and > even reporters) are straight-forward and honest. Although I have heard > of scientists who have purposely altered or supressed data for a > specific purpose, I have never met one in person.... 15.5% of scientists admit to changing a study under pressure from a funding source, according to a Nature study reported here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/daily/graphics/misconduct_060905.html Sincerely, James Salsman From james at bovik.org Tue Jun 14 04:25:51 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Tue Jun 14 04:26:07 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pr(birth defects|uranyl ion inhalation)? Message-ID: <42AE402F.4050409@bovik.org> Okay, here is a basic research question: How much uranyl ion inhalation over a period of one year will cause a 1% increase in the congenital malformation rate after thirty years? Sincerely, James Salsman From crpease at cableone.net Tue Jun 14 06:56:33 2005 From: crpease at cableone.net (chuck pease) Date: Tue Jun 14 06:56:25 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NucAlert Message-ID: <42AE6381.7030505@cableone.net> Hello: I am trying to locate a source where I may purchase the small NucAlert? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Chuck From michael.g.stabin at Vanderbilt.Edu Tue Jun 14 13:14:21 2005 From: michael.g.stabin at Vanderbilt.Edu (Stabin, Michael) Date: Tue Jun 14 13:14:33 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] questions of honesty (was Re: WISE Uranium....) Message-ID: >almost everyone in the health physics profession who might raise the points I have been raising would put at least their reputation ... and at most their job security at risk. I disagree wholeheartedly. Andy Karam spoke eloquently and summarized accurately, in my opinion, the state of our profession. Certification in Health Physics, which some choose to pursue, is bestowed and maintained not only based on academic performance but also adherence to a strong set of ethical beliefs and behavior. Among those who may or may not be certified, my experience is the same as Andy's; I have never directly encountered any cases of intentional scientific misconduct or suppression of evidence that would support it. HPs are on the whole hard working, honest professionals that know that they work in a area that crosses many scientific disciplines, and they regularly work with other professionals to ensure that their workers' safety is assured, recognizing that radiation is only one of the agents involved in many cases. Like Andy, I am baffled at your sweeping indictments of our profession, when I find it to be one marked by above average levels of honesty, integrity and interdisciplinary thinking. We all make jokes about politicians, lawyers, and car salespeople, but you have to admit that these professions do have their charlatans, and many of us have directly encountered them. Beyond honesty and integrity, I have always been struck by the way that HPs are generally such approachable and down-to-earth people, especially many of the brightest of them, a quality that I do not always observe in the medical circles that I also move in. I'm proud to be an HP and to be an educator who encourages young people to choose it as a profession! Mike Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences Vanderbilt University 1161 21st Avenue South Nashville, TN 37232-2675 Phone (615) 343-0068 Fax (615) 322-3764 Pager (615) 835-5153 e-mail michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu internet www.doseinfo-radar.com From james at bovik.org Tue Jun 14 13:45:34 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Tue Jun 14 13:45:55 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] questions of honesty (was Re: WISE Uranium....) Message-ID: <42AEC35E.9040600@bovik.org> Michael Stabin wrote, in reply to: >> almost everyone in the health physics profession who might raise the >> points I have been raising would put at least their reputation ... and >> at most their job security at risk. > > I disagree wholeheartedly.... If you believe that the points I have raised do not pose a threat to the reputation or job security of those inside the profession, then why have I had to raise them, instead of those entrusted with the responsibility for their subject matter? > I am baffled at your sweeping indictments of our profession.... This profession puts people without any developmental toxicology training in charge of the regulation of developmental toxins, and you can't understand why I'm speaking up about it? I find it hard to believe that you do not understand, very well, my fear about the use of nuclear waste by terrorists and despots. Do you not agree that putting people without any developmental toxicology training in charge of the regulation of developmental toxins is negligent? Do you not agree that it is reckless? Do you not agree that it has been done willfully? If not, why not? > I'm proud to be an HP and to be an educator who encourages > young people to choose it as a profession! I don't see how anyone could be proud of the fact that after several decades of mass industrial uranium refinement, nobody can quantify its reproductive toxicity in humans. Members of this profession have proven that they would rather call for censorship and shunning than discuss uncomfortable questions -- not just because they don't know the answers, but because they know if the public became aware of the answers, then many of them would likely be out of work. It's the same problem with the Price-Anderson act. If nuclear power is so great, why doesn't anyone in the insurance industry cover it? I'd love to see you all to compete at the 50+ cents/kwh that you would have to charge if you went out and got regular insurance like every other power company has to do. The state subsidy to prop up nuclear power would be even greater if we were giving the nuclear waste the kind of protection that it deserves from potential terrorism. It's time to end the foolishness, and start building wind farms. Sincerely, James Salsman From bobcherry at cox.net Tue Jun 14 14:33:01 2005 From: bobcherry at cox.net (bobcherry@cox.net) Date: Tue Jun 14 14:33:15 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] To Reiterate: Cancer and Power Lines Message-ID: <20050614123301.AZD20878.lakermmtao04.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> Another issue that won?t go away, from the June 6 issue of the APS News: -------------------- Electric and Magnetic Fields and Public Health On April 23, 1995, the American Physical Society issued a policy statement concerning Power Line Fields and Public Health. The APS concluded that ?the conjecture relating cancer to power line fields has not been scientifically substantiated.? Since that time, there have been several large in vivo studies of animal populations subjected for their life span to high magnetic fields, and also epidemiological studies, done with large populations and with direct, rather than surrogate, measurements of the magnetic field exposure. These studies have produced no results that change the earlier assessment by APS. In addition, no biophysical mechanisms for the initiation or promotion of cancer by electric or magnetic fields from power lines have been identified. -------------- Pay particular attention to the last sentence. Calculate the energy of a 50-Hz, 60-Hz, or RF photon and compare it to the binding energy of typical organic molecules. The result of your comparison will show why no biophysical mechanisms have been found. So far, only hand-waving (activists' wishful thinking?) arguments have been proposed for these mechanisms, IMO. Bob C Member, APS From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Tue Jun 14 15:23:50 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue Jun 14 15:24:02 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] To Reiterate: Cancer and Power Lines In-Reply-To: <20050614123301.AZD20878.lakermmtao04.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> Message-ID: <20050614132350.86468.qmail@web54306.mail.yahoo.com> While I agree with your assessment about the lack of any casual relationship between power lines and public health, the issue has never been identified as one involving ionizaiton, e.g., "binding energy of typical organic molecules." I do not believe that any physical mechanism was ever identified as a cause. --- bobcherry@cox.net wrote: > Another issue that won?t go away, from the June 6 > issue of the APS News: > -------------------- > Electric and Magnetic Fields and Public Health > > On April 23, 1995, the American Physical Society > issued a policy statement concerning Power Line > Fields and Public Health. The APS concluded that > ?the conjecture relating cancer to power line fields > has not been scientifically substantiated.? > > Since that time, there have been several large in > vivo studies of animal populations subjected for > their life span to high magnetic fields, and also > epidemiological studies, done with large populations > and with direct, rather than surrogate, measurements > of the magnetic field exposure. These studies have > produced no results that change the earlier > assessment by APS. In addition, no biophysical > mechanisms for the initiation or promotion of cancer > by electric or magnetic fields from power lines have > been identified. > -------------- > > Pay particular attention to the last sentence. > Calculate the energy of a 50-Hz, 60-Hz, or RF photon > and compare it to the binding energy of typical > organic molecules. The result of your comparison > will show why no biophysical mechanisms have been > found. So far, only hand-waving (activists' wishful > thinking?) arguments have been proposed for these > mechanisms, IMO. > > Bob C > Member, APS +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From xiurong.liu at gmail.com Tue Jun 14 16:00:32 2005 From: xiurong.liu at gmail.com (Xiurong Liu) Date: Tue Jun 14 16:00:41 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] To Reiterate: Cancer and Power Lines Message-ID: Do any of the authors of these studies consider the possibility that they are detecting residual effects from PCBs used in weathered power transformers and other components at the same place as the power lines? (Do the cell phone risk studies which also seem to recur ever consider that they might be picking up effects from residual electronics manufacturing chemicals in/on the phones?) From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Tue Jun 14 16:31:48 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue Jun 14 16:31:58 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] To Reiterate: Cancer and Power Lines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050614143149.28693.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> Someone did comment on the possibility of chemicals such as pesticides used in and around the powerlines. To me that is certainly more plausible than EM radiation. --- Xiurong Liu wrote: > Do any of the authors of these studies consider the > possibility that > they are detecting residual effects from PCBs used > in weathered power > transformers and other components at the same place > as the power > lines? > > (Do the cell phone risk studies which also seem to > recur ever consider > that they might be picking up effects from residual > electronics > manufacturing chemicals in/on the phones?) > +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html From luke.mccormick at dhs.gov Tue Jun 14 16:48:11 2005 From: luke.mccormick at dhs.gov (Mccormick, Luke I) Date: Tue Jun 14 16:42:39 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] To Reiterate: Cancer and Power Lines Message-ID: ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] To Reiterate: Cancer and Power Lines Author: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl Date: 6/14/2005 10:00 AM Do any of the authors of these studies consider the possibility that they are detecting residual effects from PCBs used in weathered power transformers and other components at the same place as the power lines? (Do the cell phone risk studies which also seem to recur ever consider that they might be picking up effects from residual electronics manufacturing chemicals in/on the phones?) _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ . From luke.mccormick at dhs.gov Tue Jun 14 16:52:58 2005 From: luke.mccormick at dhs.gov (Mccormick, Luke I) Date: Tue Jun 14 16:43:55 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] To Reiterate: Cancer and Power Lines Message-ID: ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] To Reiterate: Cancer and Power Lines Author: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl Date: 6/14/2005 10:00 AM Do any of the authors of these studies consider the possibility that they are detecting residual effects from PCBs used in weathered power transformers and other components at the same place as the power lines? (Do the cell phone risk studies which also seem to recur ever consider that they might be picking up effects from residual electronics manufacturing chemicals in/on the phones?) _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ . From Joseph.Koch at TycoHealthcare.com Tue Jun 14 16:59:20 2005 From: Joseph.Koch at TycoHealthcare.com (Koch, Joseph) Date: Tue Jun 14 16:59:33 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Beckman Message-ID: <2349C8B921F2F34F922C3C7A82E4915004CA6576@hazelw1ex2.thcg.net> Does anyone know if there is a local rep in the Midwest that services Beckman equipment? Please respond to me directly. Thanks you. Joseph D. Koch, Ph.D. Manager, EHS/RSO/Security 314-654-3269 joseph.koch@tycohealthcare.com Safety First Environment Always From teraboat at prodigy.net Tue Jun 14 16:59:52 2005 From: teraboat at prodigy.net (KSmith) Date: Tue Jun 14 17:00:09 2005 Subject: Fwd: Re: [ RadSafe ] NucAlert (NukAlert) Message-ID: <20050614145952.78821.qmail@web80208.mail.yahoo.com> --- KSmith wrote: > Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:56:46 -0700 (PDT) > From: KSmith > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NucAlert > To: crpease@cableone.net > > NukAlert(tm) is available retail & wholesale at > http://www.NukAlert.com with manufacturers support > site at http://www.KnoRad.com > > Recent DHS rulings now allow purchase of NukAlert > with > DHS grant funds. > > "Although none of the radiological and nuclear > detection equipment passed all of the > tests, the reports provide a snapshot of how the > equipment performed and how it > compared to similar types of equipment subjected to > the same tests. This is valuable > information for emergency responders looking to > acquire radiological and nuclear > detection equipment. This information can assist > responders in the selection of > appropriate equipment based upon required > performance > capabilities and the > environment in which it is to be used. > Given our present environment of no ANSI-compliant > radiological and nuclear > detection equipment, grantees should note that > Information Bulletin #133 does not > preclude the purchase of items not meeting these > standards. Until such time as > radiological and nuclear detection equipment meeting > the ANSI specifications is > available, the acquisition of non-ANSI compliant > equipment with ODP funds is > allowable and authorized. However, grantees who > procure commercially-available > radiological equipment that does not meet the ANSI > specifications are urged by ODP to > include provisions within their equipment > procurement > contracts whereby > vendors/manufacturers must retrofit or replace > equipment that fails to meet > requirements of the standards as soon as compliant > equipment is available. In the > meantime, ODP will continue to work with its ANSI, > DHS, and other Federal partners > on further radiological testing of > commercially-available equipment and will keep > grantees appraised of any developments related to > this > subject. > RESOURCES: The NIST reports will be a valuable > resource to grantees in helping them > to evaluate and select the most appropriate > radiation > detection equipment for their > needs. The reports can be found on the System > Assessment and Validation for > Emergency Responder (SAVER) (http://saver.tamu.edu/) > and the Responder > Knowledge Base (RKB) (http://www.rkb.mipt.org/) > websites." > > extract from: > > > Office for Domestic Preparedness > U.S. Department of Homeland Security > Washington, DC 20531 > ODP Information Bulletin > No. 168 May 19, 2005 > TO: All State Administrative Agency Heads > All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact > FROM: Matt A. Mayer > Acting Executive Director > SUBJECT: Updated Information on the Testing of > Radiation Detection Equipment > > > Hello: > > I am trying to locate a source where I may > purchase > > the small NucAlert? > > Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks. > > Chuck > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe > mailing > > list radsafe@radlab.nl > > > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to > have > > read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can > be > > found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe > > and other settings visit: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > > > > Karl F. Smith > Kno-Rad, Inc. > PO Box 400 > Rockville, VA 23146, USA > phone: 804-749-4381 > fax: 804-749-4657 > cell: 804-512-6556 > KSmith@KnoRad.com > http://www.KnoRad.com > From cav427 at cox.net Tue Jun 14 19:13:33 2005 From: cav427 at cox.net (Chris) Date: Tue Jun 14 19:13:50 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NucAlert (NukAlert) Message-ID: <20050614171333.MCMM26223.lakermmtao02.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> Are you refering to the Berkeley Nuclionics nukeAlert http://www.berkeleynucleonics.com/products/model-951.html or the NukAlert Keyfob http://www.nukalert.com/ by KI4u? Chris Cavanaugh cav427@cox.net > > From: KSmith > Date: 2005/06/14 Tue AM 10:59:52 EDT > To: radsafe@radlab.nl > Subject: Fwd: Re: [ RadSafe ] NucAlert (NukAlert) > > > > --- KSmith wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:56:46 -0700 (PDT) > > From: KSmith > > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NucAlert > > To: crpease@cableone.net > > > > NukAlert(tm) is available retail & wholesale at > > http://www.NukAlert.com with manufacturers support > > site at http://www.KnoRad.com > > > > Recent DHS rulings now allow purchase of NukAlert > > with > > DHS grant funds. > > > > "Although none of the radiological and nuclear > > detection equipment passed all of the > > tests, the reports provide a snapshot of how the > > equipment performed and how it > > compared to similar types of equipment subjected to > > the same tests. This is valuable > > information for emergency responders looking to > > acquire radiological and nuclear > > detection equipment. This information can assist > > responders in the selection of > > appropriate equipment based upon required > > performance > > capabilities and the > > environment in which it is to be used. > > Given our present environment of no ANSI-compliant > > radiological and nuclear > > detection equipment, grantees should note that > > Information Bulletin #133 does not > > preclude the purchase of items not meeting these > > standards. Until such time as > > radiological and nuclear detection equipment meeting > > the ANSI specifications is > > available, the acquisition of non-ANSI compliant > > equipment with ODP funds is > > allowable and authorized. However, grantees who > > procure commercially-available > > radiological equipment that does not meet the ANSI > > specifications are urged by ODP to > > include provisions within their equipment > > procurement > > contracts whereby > > vendors/manufacturers must retrofit or replace > > equipment that fails to meet > > requirements of the standards as soon as compliant > > equipment is available. In the > > meantime, ODP will continue to work with its ANSI, > > DHS, and other Federal partners > > on further radiological testing of > > commercially-available equipment and will keep > > grantees appraised of any developments related to > > this > > subject. > > RESOURCES: The NIST reports will be a valuable > > resource to grantees in helping them > > to evaluate and select the most appropriate > > radiation > > detection equipment for their > > needs. The reports can be found on the System > > Assessment and Validation for > > Emergency Responder (SAVER) (http://saver.tamu.edu/) > > and the Responder > > Knowledge Base (RKB) (http://www.rkb.mipt.org/) > > websites." > > > > extract from: > > > > > > Office for Domestic Preparedness > > U.S. Department of Homeland Security > > Washington, DC 20531 > > ODP Information Bulletin > > No. 168 May 19, 2005 > > TO: All State Administrative Agency Heads > > All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact > > FROM: Matt A. Mayer > > Acting Executive Director > > SUBJECT: Updated Information on the Testing of > > Radiation Detection Equipment > > > > > Hello: > > > I am trying to locate a source where I may > > purchase > > > the small NucAlert? > > > Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. > > > Thanks. > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe > > mailing > > > list radsafe@radlab.nl > > > > > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to > > have > > > read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can > > be > > > found at: > > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > > > > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe > > > and other settings visit: > > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > > > > > > > > Karl F. Smith > > Kno-Rad, Inc. > > PO Box 400 > > Rockville, VA 23146, USA > > phone: 804-749-4381 > > fax: 804-749-4657 > > cell: 804-512-6556 > > KSmith@KnoRad.com > > http://www.KnoRad.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From JGinniver at aol.com Tue Jun 14 20:07:52 2005 From: JGinniver at aol.com (JGinniver@aol.com) Date: Tue Jun 14 20:08:07 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] questions of honesty (was Re: WISE Uranium....) Message-ID: <215.2d5cf24.2fe076f8@aol.com> Hopfully my comments will come through in italics and can be separated from the previous comments. Regards Julian P.s. you might want to grab a coffe first it goes on a bit - sorry In a message dated 14/06/2005 12:49:42 GMT Standard Time, james@bovik.org writes: Michael Stabin wrote, in reply to: >> almost everyone in the health physics profession who might raise the >> points I have been raising would put at least their reputation ... and >> at most their job security at risk. > > I disagree wholeheartedly.... If you believe that the points I have raised do not pose a threat to the reputation or job security of those inside the profession, then why have I had to raise them, instead of those entrusted with the responsibility for their subject matter? Following on from a point in my last post which you failed to respond to James. I would ask, why have you had to raise them, instead of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, NIRS, WISE, Union of Concerned Scientists, Low Level Radiation Campaign, Green Audit, Jospeh Mangano, Helen Caldicott etc. All groups, or individuals, who have invested much more in time an effort than you on identifying issues within the nuclear industry that have led, as far as they are concerned, to public health issues. Many of these groups have also been very vocal on the issue of Depleted Uranium and have published much more information on the alleged health effects than you. Are they to part of the Conspiracy? Or have they too missed the blindingly obvious that you, with limited amount of time to study via the internet and the library, have managed to identify? If the health physics profession is to be so publically castigated, where is you comment on the failure of these organisations to challenge the establishment on the issues you have identified? > I am baffled at your sweeping indictments of our profession.... This profession puts people without any developmental toxicology training in charge of the regulation of developmental toxins, and you can't understand why I'm speaking up about it? I find it hard to believe that you do not understand, very well, my fear about the use of nuclear waste by terrorists and despots. Do you not agree that putting people without any developmental toxicology training in charge of the regulation of developmental toxins is negligent? Do you not agree that it is reckless? Do you not agree that it has been done willfully? If not, why not? Is your comment above about the ICRP, NRC and health physicists in general being 'in charge' of the regulation of Depleted Uranium (the developmental toxin mentioned?). If so I'm confused! I thought that these organisations provided advice on the restriction of exposure to radiation - period. The advice that has been provided, has as you yourself indicated in previous posts, been restricted to the assessment of radiation exposure, and the consequent risks to individuals from that radiation exposure. As you stated in your post dated Wed May 4 11:39:03 CEST 2005 SNIP>In any case, I think there needs to be a distinction -- which I, as an outsider, must say is not always made explicit in the publications of the health physics community -- between general exposure to radiation and contamination with radioactive heavy metals which are toxic in their own right. e.g. if someone tries to calculate only radiation exposure risk from a certain level of uranium ingestion or inhalation, that will seriously underestimate the risk of chromosome damage; because of U's catalytic production of hydroxyl radicals which damage DNA, RNA, proteins, and other vital substances. There is evidence that error will amount to fully six orders of magnitutude -- or five orders of magnitude for plutonium. I'm proud to be an HP and to be an educator who encourages > young people to choose it as a profession! I don't see how anyone could be proud of the fact that after several decades of mass industrial uranium refinement, nobody can quantify its reproductive toxicity in humans. Yes, you've identified the real flaw in the system of radiation protection adopted throughout the world. We've spent to much time addressing the risk to humans from radiation exposure when what we should have done, was identified that actually the radiological risk was small in comparison to the chemical risk and once having developed a rudimentary regime for the small risks from radiation exposure, then devopted our time chemical toxicity. There are many on the list who would agree that in comparison to many other risks in the workplace or in the environment from industrial processes, too much time and effort has been devoted to the small radiological hazards and not enough time an effort to more conventional worker and public health issues. Members of this profession have proven that they would rather call for censorship and shunning than discuss uncomfortable questions -- not just because they don't know the answers, but because they know if the public became aware of the answers, then many of them would likely be out of work. It's the same problem with the Price-Anderson act. If nuclear power is so great, why doesn't anyone in the insurance industry cover it? I'd love to see you all to compete at the 50+ cents/kwh that you would have to charge if you went out and got regular insurance like every other power company has to do. The only comment I would like to make on the above is that I understood in the UK that, the syndicate of individuals who underwrote some form of 'nuclear insurance' for the power industry in the UK, was the only group in Lloyds of London who made a profit year on year through the 1980's and 90's when all other isurance syndicates were suffering terribly. Also who insures the other 75% of nuclear power plants in use around the world? The state subsidy to prop up nuclear power would be even greater if we were giving the nuclear waste the kind of protection that it deserves from potential terrorism. Taxes would be much higher if all of the potential terrorist targets received the protection they deserved e.g. long trains of bulk chlorine tank cars travelling through major cities etc. It's time to end the foolishness, I can't agree more, why continue disussing depleted uranium on this list when it is clear that you have identified that the chemical toxicity is orders of magnitude greater than the risks from the small radiation exposure and start building wind farms. No, lets all try and reduce our electricity usage so that we don't need to increase our generating capacity, and if were really successful, we could shut down some of the most polluting forms of electricity generation (big bad coal, which incidently contains uranium - Hmmm I wonder if they burn above 1000 degrees in a nitrogen rich atmosphere and could also be producing UO3?) James, as ever I eagerly await your reply, Julian Sincerely, James Salsman From frantaj at aecl.ca Tue Jun 14 20:25:50 2005 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Tue Jun 14 20:26:05 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] questions of honesty (was Re: WISE Uranium....) Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A3DC@sps13.aecl.ca> Hmmm I wonder if they burn above 1000 degrees in a nitrogen rich atmosphere and could also be producing UO3?) - - - - - - - - - - - Good point Julian, but I think you got this all wrong: You see, UO3 from DU rounds is "deadly," but UO3 from the ~5,000 metric tonnes of U coming out of coal plants (world total for '00) is good old natural stuff :-) Let's see.... how many milligrams is that.... Jaro CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From hflong at pacbell.net Tue Jun 14 21:22:36 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Tue Jun 14 21:22:48 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NukAlert In-Reply-To: <20050614145952.78821.qmail@web80208.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050614192236.57309.qmail@web81809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Karl, Chuck and HPs, Jane M Orient MD, Pres, Physicians for Civil Defense, (prev. college physics teacher) notifies June 10, 2005, "If our government fails to prevent the No-Longer-Unthinkable event, DHS equipment - and policy - will keep rescue teams miles away from the area!" "Local officials will have no way to distinguish lethal from negligible doses of radiation, or to determine the adequacy of shelter. Millions could die an agonizing death from PREVENTABLE radiation sickness - unless you help." "Put radiation monitoring in the hands of EVERY citizen"."We have the technology: Nukalert" - The one on my key chain has imprinted: # chirps 1 - 41 days to get 100rad, 2- 20d, 3-10d, 4-5d, 6-1d, 7-15hr, 8-8hr, 9-4hr, 10+ <2hr Neat! get one! www.NukAlert.com Howard Long MD MPH. KSmith wrote: -- KSmith wrote: > Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:56:46 -0700 (PDT) > From: KSmith > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NucAlert > To: crpease@cableone.net > > NukAlert(tm) is available retail & wholesale at > http://www.NukAlert.com with manufacturers support > site at http://www.KnoRad.com > > Recent DHS rulings now allow purchase of NukAlert with DHS grant funds. > > "Although none of the radiological and nuclear > detection equipment passed all of the > tests, the reports provide a snapshot of how the > equipment performed and how it > compared to similar types of equipment subjected to > the same tests. This is valuable > information for emergency responders looking to > acquire radiological and nuclear > detection equipment. This information can assist > responders in the selection of > appropriate equipment based upon required > performance > capabilities and the > environment in which it is to be used. > Given our present environment of no ANSI-compliant > radiological and nuclear > detection equipment, grantees should note that > Information Bulletin #133 does not > preclude the purchase of items not meeting these > standards. Until such time as > radiological and nuclear detection equipment meeting > the ANSI specifications is > available, the acquisition of non-ANSI compliant > equipment with ODP funds is > allowable and authorized. However, grantees who > procure commercially-available > radiological equipment that does not meet the ANSI > specifications are urged by ODP to > include provisions within their equipment > procurement > contracts whereby > vendors/manufacturers must retrofit or replace > equipment that fails to meet > requirements of the standards as soon as compliant > equipment is available. In the > meantime, ODP will continue to work with its ANSI, > DHS, and other Federal partners > on further radiological testing of > commercially-available equipment and will keep > grantees appraised of any developments related to > this > subject. > RESOURCES: The NIST reports will be a valuable > resource to grantees in helping them > to evaluate and select the most appropriate > radiation > detection equipment for their > needs. The reports can be found on the System > Assessment and Validation for > Emergency Responder (SAVER) (http://saver.tamu.edu/) > and the Responder > Knowledge Base (RKB) (http://www.rkb.mipt.org/) > websites." > > extract from: > Office for Domestic Preparedness > U.S. Department of Homeland Security > Washington, DC 20531 > ODP Information Bulletin > No. 168 May 19, 2005 > TO: All State Administrative Agency Heads > All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact > FROM: Matt A. Mayer > Acting Executive Director > SUBJECT: Updated Information on the Testing of > Radiation Detection Equipment > > > Hello: > > I am trying to locate a source where I may > purchase > > the small NucAlert? > > Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks. > > Chuck _______________________________________________ > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > Karl F. Smith > Kno-Rad, Inc. > PO Box 400 > Rockville, VA 23146, USA > phone: 804-749-4381 > fax: 804-749-4657 > cell: 804-512-6556 > KSmith@KnoRad.com > http://www.KnoRad.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Tue Jun 14 21:57:55 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue Jun 14 21:58:05 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NukAlert In-Reply-To: <20050614192236.57309.qmail@web81809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050614195755.78621.qmail@web54307.mail.yahoo.com> Currently, I more concerned about an out break of avian flu. Our health care system is certainly not capable of handling such a natural event. --- howard long wrote: > Karl, Chuck and HPs, > Jane M Orient MD, Pres, Physicians for Civil > Defense, (prev. college physics teacher) > notifies June 10, 2005, "If our government fails to > prevent the No-Longer-Unthinkable event, > DHS equipment - and policy - will keep rescue teams > miles away from the area!" > > "Local officials will have no way to distinguish > lethal from negligible doses of radiation, or to > determine the adequacy of shelter. Millions could > die an agonizing death from PREVENTABLE > radiation sickness - unless you help." > > "Put radiation monitoring in the hands of EVERY > citizen"."We have the technology: Nukalert" - > > The one on my key chain has imprinted: > # chirps 1 - 41 days to get 100rad, 2- 20d, 3-10d, > 4-5d, 6-1d, 7-15hr, 8-8hr, 9-4hr, 10+ <2hr > Neat! get one! www.NukAlert.com > > Howard Long MD MPH. > > KSmith wrote: > -- KSmith wrote: > . . . +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From james at bovik.org Tue Jun 14 22:02:39 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Tue Jun 14 22:03:02 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] questions of honesty (was Re: WISE Uranium....) Message-ID: <42AF37DF.8040108@bovik.org> > [Has everyone else] missed the blindingly obvious that you, with > limited amount of time to study via the internet and the library, > have managed to identify? The taking up of oxygen by U3O8, "is not infrequently ignored." (Gmelin Handbook, vol. U-C1 (1977), page 98.) > I thought that [the ICRP and NRC] provided advice on the > restriction of exposure to radiation - period. 42 U.S.C. 2114(a)(1) gives the NRC authority over both the "radiological and non-radiological hazards" associated with processing, possession, and transfer of depleted uranium: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002114----000-.html > Can you tell me why you are lambasting the health physics > profession for failing to regulate a non-radiological risk. Sure, because it's a risk (often the largest) from the materials that the health physics community has been placed in charge of regulating. I'm glad I'm not the only one worried about the tendency to focus on radiological risks while ignoring larger nonradiological risks. > Also who insures the other 75% of nuclear power plants in > use around the world? Good question. Sincerely, James Salsman From loc at icx.net Tue Jun 14 23:07:28 2005 From: loc at icx.net (Susan Gawarecki) Date: Tue Jun 14 22:58:33 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: WISE Uranium caluclators etc Message-ID: <42AF4710.50803@icx.net> 5 GRAMS??? What are you doing, snorting lines? Susan Gawarecki Salsman wrote: > So, inhaling 5 grams of depleted uranium trioxide, or about > 20 times the LD50/30 for rabbits, results in only a 182 mrem > exposure, according to the calculator, without any mention > at all of the chemical toxicity. From garyi at trinityphysics.com Tue Jun 14 23:39:41 2005 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi@trinityphysics.com) Date: Tue Jun 14 23:33:11 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: WISE Uranium caluclators etc In-Reply-To: <42AF4710.50803@icx.net> Message-ID: <42AF084D.17183.29935CED@localhost> LOL you made my day. :) He's snorting something I think. Pretty intelligent compared to your usual fixed-bias nut, though. Too bad he's looking for proof instead of truth. I think this thread is a waste of time. This guy will die before he gives up his DU jihad - he's another true believer, and we seem to be the infidels :) Thanks for the laugh! Gary Isenhower On 14 Jun 2005 at 17:07, Susan Gawarecki wrote: > 5 GRAMS??? What are you doing, snorting lines? > > Susan Gawarecki > > Salsman wrote: > > > So, inhaling 5 grams of depleted uranium trioxide, or about > > 20 times the LD50/30 for rabbits, results in only a 182 mrem > > exposure, according to the calculator, without any mention > > at all of the chemical toxicity. > > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list > radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and > understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From garyi at trinityphysics.com Tue Jun 14 23:41:09 2005 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi@trinityphysics.com) Date: Tue Jun 14 23:34:33 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: WISE Uranium caluclators etc In-Reply-To: <42AF4710.50803@icx.net> Message-ID: <42AF08A5.13175.2994B52A@localhost> LOL you made my day. :) He's snorting something I think. Pretty intelligent compared to your usual fixed-bias nut, though. Too bad he's looking for proof instead of truth. I think this thread is a waste of time. This guy will die before he gives up his DU jihad - he's another true believer, and we seem to be the infidels :) Thanks for the laugh! Gary Isenhower On 14 Jun 2005 at 17:07, Susan Gawarecki wrote: > 5 GRAMS??? What are you doing, snorting lines? > > Susan Gawarecki > > Salsman wrote: > > > So, inhaling 5 grams of depleted uranium trioxide, or about > > 20 times the LD50/30 for rabbits, results in only a 182 mrem > > exposure, according to the calculator, without any mention > > at all of the chemical toxicity. > > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list > radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and > understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From syd.levine at mindspring.com Tue Jun 14 23:49:57 2005 From: syd.levine at mindspring.com (Syd H. Levine) Date: Tue Jun 14 23:50:13 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: WISE Uranium caluclators etc References: <42AF084D.17183.29935CED@localhost> Message-ID: <000e01c5712b$037d1a70$0100a8c0@House> Well said! I just posted something similar, but forgot to use the "reply all" button rather than just the reply button I am more accustomed to using. Syd H. Levine AnaLog Services, Inc. Phone: 270-276-5671 Telefax: 270-276-5588 E-mail: analog@logwell.com URL: www.logwell.com ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Susan Gawarecki" ; Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: WISE Uranium caluclators etc > LOL you made my day. :) > > He's snorting something I think. Pretty intelligent compared to your > usual fixed-bias nut, > though. Too bad he's looking for proof instead of truth. I think this > thread is a waste of > time. This guy will die before he gives up his DU jihad - he's another > true believer, and > we seem to be the infidels :) > > Thanks for the laugh! > Gary Isenhower > > On 14 Jun 2005 at 17:07, Susan Gawarecki wrote: > >> 5 GRAMS??? What are you doing, snorting lines? >> >> Susan Gawarecki >> >> Salsman wrote: >> >> > So, inhaling 5 grams of depleted uranium trioxide, or about >> > 20 times the LD50/30 for rabbits, results in only a 182 mrem >> > exposure, according to the calculator, without any mention >> > at all of the chemical toxicity. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list >> radsafe@radlab.nl >> >> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and >> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: >> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html >> >> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings >> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From paksbi at rit.edu Wed Jun 15 00:02:47 2005 From: paksbi at rit.edu (A Karam) Date: Wed Jun 15 00:02:58 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] questions of honesty (was Re: WISE Uranium....) Message-ID: <8C7AD67141A06D499823B280003E6C02EDF169@svits11.main.ad.rit.edu> Just as a guess, I suspect the full name of this list server might answer your question - the radiation safety list server. This suggests to me that the focus is, by design, supposed to be radiation safety, not toxicology or chemistry. I believe there is a toxicology list server for toxicology questions, and there is probably a chemistry list server for chemistry questions. You may have more luck posting your questions and comments in those venues. Anybody can speculate about anything, but I know my preference is to defer to experts in areas that depart from my areas of expertise. Andy ________________________________ I'm glad I'm not the only one worried about the tendency to focus on radiological risks while ignoring larger nonradiological risks. From JGinniver at aol.com Wed Jun 15 00:37:53 2005 From: JGinniver at aol.com (JGinniver@aol.com) Date: Wed Jun 15 00:38:07 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] questions of honesty (was Re: WISE Uranium....) Message-ID: <45.2a350578.2fe0b641@aol.com> James, thanks for the reply, even it is very limited. In a message dated 14/06/2005 21:03:07 GMT Standard Time, james@bovik.org w rites: > [Has everyone else] missed the blindingly obvious that you, with > limited amount of time to study via the internet and the library, > have managed to identify? The taking up of oxygen by U3O8, "is not infrequently ignored." (Gmelin Handbook, vol. U-C1 (1977), page 98.) You appear to have missed the point, the fact that it is identified in a book is not relevant to my previous post. The cornerstone of your arguments against both DU and the Uranium fuel cycle used in nuclear power generation, have not been identified by any other watchdog (anti-nuclear) group. Can you provide a clear statement on the following two points. 1) Why haven't your arguments been made by the many individuals employed either directly or indirectly by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, NIRS, WISE, UCS, LLRC, Green Audit or any other watchdog organisation? 2) Given that these organisations haven't used or identified the same key issues as yourself, why shouldn't they be criticised? > I thought that [the ICRP and NRC] provided advice on the > restriction of exposure to radiation - period. 42 U.S.C. 2114(a)(1) gives the NRC authority over both the "radiological and non-radiological hazards" associated with processing, possession, and transfer of depleted uranium: _http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002114--- -000-.html_ (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002114----000-.html) Thanks you for clarifying the above. I wasn't aware as a non-US citizen that the NRC regulated this area. Perhaps you could clarify a further misunderstanding that I have. I always thought that the NRC regulated the Civil Nuclear Power Industry (along with various activities involving either radioactive material or X-rays). I didn't realise that they were staffed wholly by Health Physicists. I had thought that they were a multidisciplinary organisation that employed some health physicists/radiation protection specialists, and in the main the HP/RP people were just a small subset of the organisation. The NRC is also charged with ensuring the conventional and nuclear safety of Power Plants, or is all of this too regulated by the health physicists? > Can you tell me why you are lambasting the health physics > profession for failing to regulate a non-radiological risk. Sure, because it's a risk (often the largest) from the materials that the health physics community has been placed in charge of regulating. If I haven't misunderstood both the role and the organisation of the NRC, then it is plainly wrong to state that the 'health physics community has been placed in charge of regulating' any materials, including Uranium. Instead it is a Government regulatory body who is responsible and that this body contains, I'm sure, chemists and other scientits who are better placed to formulate policy and guidance on the chemical hazards of Uranium or Depleted Uranium. Even if the NRC choose to involve their own Health Physics staff in the formulation of government policy or regulation, and I would hope that you accept from the discussions you have seen on radsafe that this doesn't always (and more generally does rarely) reflect the views of the wider health physics community, this is still not the same as the 'health physics community' being the regulator. I'm glad I'm not the only one worried about the tendency to focus on radiological risks while ignoring larger nonradiological risks. Any thoughts on the potential hazards of combustion (or even smelting) of Uranium bearing ores. Does this have the same potential from the production UO3 that can be dispersed in the plume from these plants? Warmest regards, Julian From james.g.barnes at att.net Wed Jun 15 01:14:37 2005 From: james.g.barnes at att.net (james.g.barnes@att.net) Date: Wed Jun 15 01:14:58 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranium assay; relative sensitivities Message-ID: <061420052314.8139.42AF64DD0002EE2C00001FCB21587667209C0A029D0E0DD209D29C0A030E06@att.net> Folks; For measurement of mass concentration of uranium (i.e., micrograms of U/Liter), is a radiometric analysis (i.e., pCi/Liter converted to ug/Liter) or a chemical assay measurement (directly measuring for chemical forms of U) more sensitive? Jim Barnes From jim_hoerner at hotmail.com Wed Jun 15 02:50:27 2005 From: jim_hoerner at hotmail.com (Jim Hoerner) Date: Wed Jun 15 02:50:37 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: questions of honesty In-Reply-To: <200506141832.j5EIV86f018580@radlab.nl> Message-ID: >From: James Salsman >To: michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.Edu >Cc: radsafe@radlab.nl >Subject: [ RadSafe ] questions of honesty (was Re: WISE Uranium....) >Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 7:45 AM >If you believe that the points I have raised do not pose a threat >to the reputation or job security of those inside the profession, >then why have I had to raise them, instead of those entrusted with >the responsibility for their subject matter? Yes, James. One issue you have raised - that the chemical toxicity of uranium is more threatening than its radiological toxicity - is a minor threat to some inside this profession, perhaps. One point for James, woohoo! >This profession puts people without any developmental toxicology >training in charge of the regulation of developmental toxins, and >you can't understand why I'm speaking up about it? I enjoy your posts, but they are usually more respectful than this. RadSafe in general is full of brilliant, well-qualified individuals. Why don't you go after the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for allowing the use of coal cinders containing _natural_ (gasp!) uranium and mercury as a de-icer on public highways? >I find it hard to believe that you do not understand, very well, my fear >about the use of nuclear waste by terrorists and despots. History shows that a fear of spiders is much more logical. >I don't see how anyone could be proud of the fact that after >several decades of mass industrial uranium refinement, nobody >can quantify its reproductive toxicity in humans. Not even you? So what exactly are you complaining about? Be careful of the uranium in your backyard soil or leaching from your tap water. Call your public water authority today, and tell them their limits are baseless. >Members of this profession have proven that they would rather >call for censorship and shunning than discuss uncomfortable >questions Don't generalize, please. But I agree with you. I was apalled at all the calls for your censorship. You seem to be a generally intelligent human being, if lacking in certain specialized areas, like all of us. You were also fairly polite from what I read before my travels. Ignore the vocal minority (?) that wish to silence you when you act respectfully. >-- not just because they don't know the answers, but >because they know if the public became aware of the answers, >then many of them would likely be out of work. I doubt they are concerned about that. More likely, they have thin skins and disagree with you. >It's the same problem with the Price-Anderson act. If nuclear >power is so great, why doesn't anyone in the insurance >industry cover it? I'd love to see you all to compete at the >50+ cents/kwh You should be ashamed of yourself for posting such bulloney sandwiches. >It's time to end the foolishness, and start building wind farms. Heh. Wind is not capable of baseload nor peak demand. It therefore does not avoid the building of power plants. It is not built at all without huge subsidies (see 2004 in the US). It emits more CO2 than nuclear. It's payback time is relatively long. Energy storage doubles its cost. But please, feel free to install a wind generator in your back yard. If not, why not? Really, why do you not have solar panels on your roof, nor a wind turbine in your backyard? James? Sincerely, Jim Hoerner -- Hold the door for the stranger behind you. When the driver in the adjacent lane signals to get over, slow down. Smile and say "hi" to the folks you pass on the sidewalk. Give blood. Volunteer. From bobcat167 at earthlink.net Wed Jun 15 03:03:44 2005 From: bobcat167 at earthlink.net (Bob Shannon) Date: Wed Jun 15 03:04:10 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranium assay; relative sensitivities In-Reply-To: <061420052314.8139.42AF64DD0002EE2C00001FCB21587667209C0A029D0E0DD209D29C0A030E06@att.net> Message-ID: <20050615010348.2385F3C004@hnrelay-2.lvcm.net> Detection sensitivity depends on the method and instrumentation used. Alpha spectroscopy measures radioactivity directly and generally has MDAs in the vicinity 10^-2 pCi/L range for each of the isotopes. KPA (Kinetic Phosphorimetry) is capable of total uranium measurements only. Labs often convert mass concentration results assuming a specific activity of 0.67 pCi total U alpha / ug total U for reporting. Any conversion to activity, however, presupposes that the isotopic make-up of the sample is known, so be sure to know what assumptions are made and only use this technique when you know the isotopic makeup of your uranium. Also be careful since 'natural' uranium does not always exist in 'natural' abundance (i.e. secular equilibrium of U-238 and U-234) in nature. In terms of activity, ICP-MS is significantly more sensitive for U-238 or U-235 than it is for U-234. Modern instrumentation can typically detect low part-per-trillion levels and below depending on the type of instrument and the type of sample. This would yield U-238 and U-235 detection levels in the attocurie / L range, while sensitivity is probably comparable to alpha spectroscopy values for U-234. Sensitivity is not the only consideration if you want to use ICP-MS. Many labs have not set up adequately to provide quality assured isotopic measurements by ICP-MS (as opposed to total Uranium - see KPA above for restrictions). I would ask for documented performance data and check to see what protocols are in place for doing isotopics. I would especially recommend asking if the lab does intercomparison samples (PE samples) and check these results before I trusted my samples to the lab. Bob Shannon -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of james.g.barnes@att.net Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 5:15 PM To: RadSafe Bulletin Board Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranium assay; relative sensitivities Folks; For measurement of mass concentration of uranium (i.e., micrograms of U/Liter), is a radiometric analysis (i.e., pCi/Liter converted to ug/Liter) or a chemical assay measurement (directly measuring for chemical forms of U) more sensitive? Jim Barnes _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From james at bovik.org Wed Jun 15 12:43:13 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Wed Jun 15 12:43:34 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] questions of honesty (was Re: WISE Uranium....) Message-ID: <42B00641.9080205@bovik.org> Julian Ginniver wrote: > Any thoughts on the potential hazards of combustion (or even smelting) of > Uranium bearing ores. Does this have the same potential from the production > UO3 that can be dispersed in the plume from these plants? I wonder about whether all of the potential liabilities have been properly disclosed from employers to the employees of the nuclear industry. Everyone who collaborates in the development of, or participates in the execution of, regulations which allow the release of any reproductive toxins with an indeterminant toxicity profile needs to immediately determine whether such actions are in fact compatible with the ethical code under which they are governed, and be fully prepared to accept the consequences if they make a mistake in their determination of the answer to this question. This determination must be made personally, as far as I know. If anyone has any legal advice on this question, I hope that they will post it for the benefit of all. Sincerely, James Salsman From sontermj at tpg.com.au Wed Jun 15 13:50:33 2005 From: sontermj at tpg.com.au (Mark Sonter) Date: Wed Jun 15 13:50:50 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <200506141834.j5EIV86g018580@radlab.nl> References: <200506141834.j5EIV86g018580@radlab.nl> Message-ID: <42B01609.7010307@tpg.com.au> "It's time to end the foolishness and start building wind farms" ---- I think that says it all, doesn't it..... It must surely be obvious now to everybody that this thread is just a waste of time and bandwidth. Mark Sonter From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jun 15 14:02:53 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed Jun 15 14:03:03 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: NukAlert AND Flu Vaccine In-Reply-To: <20050614223030.24571.qmail@web81809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050615120253.4872.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> I am not sure what your letter-to-the-editor on intradermal vaccinations or fire insurance has to do with the discussion. My comments refer to the fact that our concerns are misdirected. We are spending significant resources on detection are preparedness for radiological weapons. Yet, natural biological agents, like viruses have kill more individuals. Rather than running around with radiation meters attached to our wrists, we need to reassess the real dangers to our societies. --- howard long wrote: > John, I, too, am concerned about avian flu > (attached) > > Do you have fire insurance on your home? > That event is also highly unlikely and more cost to > insure than NukAlert. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Currently, I more concerned about an out break of > avian flu. Our health care system is certainly not > capable of handling such a natural event. > > --- howard long wrote: > > > Karl, Chuck and HPs, > > Jane M Orient MD, Pres, Physicians for Civil > > Defense, (prev. college physics teacher) > > notifies June 10, 2005, "If our government fails > to > > prevent the No-Longer-Unthinkable event, > > DHS equipment - and policy - will keep rescue > teams > > miles away from the area!" > > > > "Local officials will have no way to distinguish > > lethal from negligible doses of radiation, or to > > determine the adequacy of shelter. Millions could > > die an agonizing death from PREVENTABLE > > radiation sickness - unless you help." > > > > "Put radiation monitoring in the hands of EVERY > > citizen"."We have the technology: Nukalert" - > > > > The one on my key chain has imprinted: > > # chirps 1 - 41 days to get 100rad, 2- 20d, 3-10d, > > 4-5d, 6-1d, 7-15hr, 8-8hr, 9-4hr, 10+ <2hr > > Neat! get one! www.NukAlert.com > > > > Howard Long MD MPH. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From maurysis at ev1.net Wed Jun 15 14:39:45 2005 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Wed Jun 15 14:39:58 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <42B01609.7010307@tpg.com.au> References: <200506141834.j5EIV86g018580@radlab.nl> <42B01609.7010307@tpg.com.au> Message-ID: <42B02191.8050909@ev1.net> Hi Mark, What on earth is wrong with wind farms? Living in Nebraska where we had plenty of wind most of the time was great. In many other localities, life would have been much more bearable if there had been more wind on high temperature days. It seems likely that if we can build farms that will grow more wind, the effort should be undertaken post haste if not maybe even right away. Think about it! I'll bet that with a little ingenuity we could splice different species of young wind plants for some fabulous results. And consider the potential of genetic wind engineering to grow winds that are insect resistant and, best of all, a variety of temperature variations. Cool wind plants should produce great revenue in the southern US during the summer. And the hot humid wind plants could be cultivated on some other continents to generate tremendous export revenues as well as climate modification in the desert interiors of some continents. The potential wealth from hot air plant seedlings in public buildings in Washington DC would know no limit and could be exported all over the whole world! Gosh! All these new industries ... and first suggested on Radsafe ... Wow! Mark, could we start a new business together? I'm overwhelmed! Cheers, Maury&Dog (Maury Siskel maurysis@ev1.net) ============= Mark Sonter wrote: > "It's time to end the foolishness and start building wind farms" ---- > I think that says it all, doesn't it..... > > It must surely be obvious now to everybody that this thread is just a > waste of time and bandwidth. > > Mark Sonter From Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com Wed Jun 15 15:17:59 2005 From: Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com (Flanigan, Floyd) Date: Wed Jun 15 15:18:46 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 Message-ID: <9B9410BB35BC3443BEA0369E880B0BA50104DB4B@piex01.pi.nmcco.net> Maury, Just remember the moral implications when going into the field of wind husbandry. This could lead to cloning and in the end, mankind could end up trying to play 'God' in determining which winds were better than others , which winds should be allowed to reproduce and which would be sterilized. We cannot allow ourselves to become insensitive to the rights and feelings of these winds. If we are not careful, in time, hackneyed phrases such as 'Free as the wind' could loose their meaning. I don't even want to go into the possible can of proverbial worms we could be opening when it comes to the gusts and gales! Floyd W.Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Maury Siskel Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:40 AM To: Mark Sonter Cc: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 Hi Mark, What on earth is wrong with wind farms? Living in Nebraska where we had plenty of wind most of the time was great. In many other localities, life would have been much more bearable if there had been more wind on high temperature days. It seems likely that if we can build farms that will grow more wind, the effort should be undertaken post haste if not maybe even right away. Think about it! I'll bet that with a little ingenuity we could splice different species of young wind plants for some fabulous results. And consider the potential of genetic wind engineering to grow winds that are insect resistant and, best of all, a variety of temperature variations. Cool wind plants should produce great revenue in the southern US during the summer. And the hot humid wind plants could be cultivated on some other continents to generate tremendous export revenues as well as climate modification in the desert interiors of some continents. The potential wealth from hot air plant seedlings in public buildings in Washington DC would know no limit and could be exported all over the whole world! Gosh! All these new industries ... and first suggested on Radsafe ... Wow! Mark, could we start a new business together? I'm overwhelmed! Cheers, Maury&Dog (Maury Siskel maurysis@ev1.net) ============= Mark Sonter wrote: > "It's time to end the foolishness and start building wind farms" ---- > I think that says it all, doesn't it..... > > It must surely be obvious now to everybody that this thread is just a > waste of time and bandwidth. > > Mark Sonter _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From bobcherry at cox.net Wed Jun 15 15:37:10 2005 From: bobcherry at cox.net (bobcherry@cox.net) Date: Wed Jun 15 15:37:23 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 Message-ID: <20050615133710.RSJP18139.lakermmtao08.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> Even worse than cloning wind is breaking wind. > > From: "Flanigan, Floyd" > Date: 2005/06/15 Wed AM 09:17:59 EDT > To: "Maury Siskel" , "Mark Sonter" > CC: radsafe@radlab.nl > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 > > Maury, > Just remember the moral implications when going into the field of wind husbandry. This could lead to cloning and in the end, mankind could end up trying to play 'God' in determining which winds were better than others , which winds should be allowed to reproduce and which would be sterilized. We cannot allow ourselves to become insensitive to the rights and feelings of these winds. If we are not careful, in time, hackneyed phrases such as 'Free as the wind' could loose their meaning. I don't even want to go into the possible can of proverbial worms we could be opening when it comes to the gusts and gales! > > Floyd W.Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P. > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl]On > Behalf Of Maury Siskel > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:40 AM > To: Mark Sonter > Cc: radsafe@radlab.nl > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 > > > Hi Mark, > What on earth is wrong with wind farms? Living in Nebraska where we had > plenty of wind most of the time was great. In many other localities, > life would have been much more bearable if there had been more wind on > high temperature days. It seems likely that if we can build farms that > will grow more wind, the effort should be undertaken post haste if not > maybe even right away. > > Think about it! I'll bet that with a little ingenuity we could splice > different species of young wind plants for some fabulous results. And > consider the potential of genetic wind engineering to grow winds that > are insect resistant and, best of all, a variety of temperature > variations. Cool wind plants should produce great revenue in the > southern US during the summer. And the hot humid wind plants could be > cultivated on some other continents to generate tremendous export > revenues as well as climate modification in the desert interiors of some > continents. The potential wealth from hot air plant seedlings in public > buildings in Washington DC would know no limit and could be exported all > over the whole world! > > Gosh! All these new industries ... and first suggested on Radsafe ... > Wow! Mark, could we start a new business together? I'm overwhelmed! > Cheers, > Maury&Dog (Maury Siskel maurysis@ev1.net) > > ============= > Mark Sonter wrote: > > > "It's time to end the foolishness and start building wind farms" ---- > > I think that says it all, doesn't it..... > > > > It must surely be obvious now to everybody that this thread is just a > > waste of time and bandwidth. > > > > Mark Sonter > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jun 15 15:50:17 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed Jun 15 15:50:26 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <42B02191.8050909@ev1.net> Message-ID: <20050615135017.80450.qmail@web54305.mail.yahoo.com> Just out of curiousity, how many windmills would it take to power a steel mill? Or a city of 1 million people? Not just their homes. --- Maury Siskel wrote: > Hi Mark, > What on earth is wrong with wind farms? Living in > Nebraska where we had > plenty of wind most of the time was great. In many > other localities, > life would have been much more bearable if there had > been more wind on > high temperature days. It seems likely that if we > can build farms that > will grow more wind, the effort should be undertaken > post haste if not > maybe even right away. > > Think about it! I'll bet that with a little > ingenuity we could splice > different species of young wind plants for some > fabulous results. And > consider the potential of genetic wind engineering > to grow winds that > are insect resistant and, best of all, a variety of > temperature > variations. Cool wind plants should produce great > revenue in the > southern US during the summer. And the hot humid > wind plants could be > cultivated on some other continents to generate > tremendous export > revenues as well as climate modification in the > desert interiors of some > continents. The potential wealth from hot air plant > seedlings in public > buildings in Washington DC would know no limit and > could be exported all > over the whole world! > > Gosh! All these new industries ... and first > suggested on Radsafe ... > Wow! Mark, could we start a new business together? > I'm overwhelmed! > Cheers, > Maury&Dog (Maury Siskel maurysis@ev1.net) > > ============= > Mark Sonter wrote: > > > "It's time to end the foolishness and start > building wind farms" ---- > > I think that says it all, doesn't it..... > > > > It must surely be obvious now to everybody that > this thread is just a > > waste of time and bandwidth. > > > > Mark Sonter > +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From frantaj at aecl.ca Wed Jun 15 16:24:07 2005 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Wed Jun 15 16:24:20 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A3E0@sps13.aecl.ca> I don't know about steel mills, but here in Quebec we have several large aluminum smelters, which use on the order of 200 MWe each (it is largely due these plants that Quebec actually has a higher electrical consumption rate than the much more populous and industrialised province of Ontario). With a typical capacity factor of about 25% (19% for all the windmills in Germany), you would need about 800 one-megawatt windmills to provide that much power, averaged over a year. But you'd still need backup sources for when the wind doesn't blow..... (in Quebec, we are fortunate to be able to "store" excess wind power production by closing hydro dam gates and letting water accumulate in the reservoirs....) Jaro -----Original Message----- From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday June 15, 2005 9:50 AM To: Maury Siskel; Mark Sonter Cc: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 Just out of curiousity, how many windmills would it take to power a steel mill? Or a city of 1 million people? Not just their homes. CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From rorthen at cecinc.com Wed Jun 15 16:24:51 2005 From: rorthen at cecinc.com (Rick Orthen) Date: Wed Jun 15 16:25:04 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <20050615135017.80450.qmail@web54305.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200506151024263.SM01540@rorthen> That was an impossible dream of Don Quixote. Rick Orthen -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 9:50 AM To: Maury Siskel; Mark Sonter Cc: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 Just out of curiousity, how many windmills would it take to power a steel mill? Or a city of 1 million people? Not just their homes. From m.schouwenburg at tnw.tudelft.nl Wed Jun 15 16:24:59 2005 From: m.schouwenburg at tnw.tudelft.nl (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Wed Jun 15 16:25:12 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] JobPosting: Temproral positions for experienced researchers in radiopharmaceutical chemistry Message-ID: <1820.82.210.100.14.1118845499.squirrel@webmail.iri.tudelft.nl> JobPosting If you're interested in this position, please do NOT reply to the list or me. Use the contact information as mentioned below and in the attached pdf-file containing the full job description. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Colleagues, Please, find the announcement below. For more details, see the attached file. TEMPORAL POSITIONS FOR EXPERIENCED RESEARCHERS IN RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL CHEMISTRY Institute of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology (ICHTJ) in Warsaw, Poland, announces recruitment for temporal positions for scientists - experts in radiopharmaceutical chemistry. The positions will be founded by the European Commission within the Programme Marie Curie Host Fellowships for Transfer of Knowledge (ToK) in the frame of the project Chemical Studies for Design and Production of New Radiopharmaceuticals (POL-RAD-PHARM, EC grant No 509224). The objective of the project is to introduce new aspects of radiopharmaceutical sciences to the ICHTJ staff by leading European researchers. Jerzy Narbutt Professor Head, Department of Radiochemistry Institute of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology 03-195 Warsaw, Poland Phone: +48 22 811 2735 Fax: +48 22 811 1532 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marcel Schouwenburg RadSafe moderator & listowner From hflong at pacbell.net Wed Jun 15 00:30:30 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Wed Jun 15 16:33:43 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NukAlert AND Flu Vaccine In-Reply-To: <20050614195755.78621.qmail@web54307.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050614223030.24571.qmail@web81809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John, I, too, am concerned about avian flu (attached) Do you have fire insurance on your home? That event is also highly unlikely and more cost to insure than NukAlert. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Currently, I more concerned about an out break of avian flu. Our health care system is certainly not capable of handling such a natural event. --- howard long wrote: > Karl, Chuck and HPs, > Jane M Orient MD, Pres, Physicians for Civil > Defense, (prev. college physics teacher) > notifies June 10, 2005, "If our government fails to > prevent the No-Longer-Unthinkable event, > DHS equipment - and policy - will keep rescue teams > miles away from the area!" > > "Local officials will have no way to distinguish > lethal from negligible doses of radiation, or to > determine the adequacy of shelter. Millions could > die an agonizing death from PREVENTABLE > radiation sickness - unless you help." > > "Put radiation monitoring in the hands of EVERY > citizen"."We have the technology: Nukalert" - > > The one on my key chain has imprinted: > # chirps 1 - 41 days to get 100rad, 2- 20d, 3-10d, > 4-5d, 6-1d, 7-15hr, 8-8hr, 9-4hr, 10+ <2hr > Neat! get one! www.NukAlert.com > > Howard Long MD MPH. From m.schouwenburg at tnw.tudelft.nl Wed Jun 15 16:32:05 2005 From: m.schouwenburg at tnw.tudelft.nl (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Wed Jun 15 16:34:10 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Resend - JobPosting: Temproral positions for experienced researchers in radiopharmaceutical chemistry Message-ID: <1846.82.210.100.14.1118845925.squirrel@webmail.iri.tudelft.nl> JobPosting Resend: I forgot to attach the jobdescription (pdf-file). If you're interested in this position, please do NOT reply to the list or me. Use the contact information as mentioned below and in the attached pdf-file containing the full job description. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Colleagues, Please, find the announcement below. For more details, see the attached file. TEMPORAL POSITIONS FOR EXPERIENCED RESEARCHERS IN RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL CHEMISTRY Institute of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology (ICHTJ) in Warsaw, Poland, announces recruitment for temporal positions for scientists - experts in radiopharmaceutical chemistry. The positions will be founded by the European Commission within the Programme Marie Curie Host Fellowships for Transfer of Knowledge (ToK) in the frame of the project Chemical Studies for Design and Production of New Radiopharmaceuticals (POL-RAD-PHARM, EC grant No 509224). The objective of the project is to introduce new aspects of radiopharmaceutical sciences to the ICHTJ staff by leading European researchers. Jerzy Narbutt Professor Head, Department of Radiochemistry Institute of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology 03-195 Warsaw, Poland Phone: +48 22 811 2735 Fax: +48 22 811 1532 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marcel Schouwenburg RadSafe moderator & listowner Marcel Schouwenburg Hoofd afdeling Opleidingen Delft Nationaal Centrum voor StralingsVeiligheid (NCSV) TU Delft - Faculteit TNW / Reactor Instituut Delft Mekelweg 15 2629 JB DELFT Tel: 015 27 86575 Fax: 015 27 81717 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rekrutacja_05.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 96672 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/attachments/20050615/5f6ed44f/Rekrutacja_05-0001.pdf From maurysis at ev1.net Wed Jun 15 16:52:09 2005 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Wed Jun 15 16:52:39 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <200506151024263.SM01540@rorthen> References: <200506151024263.SM01540@rorthen> Message-ID: <42B04099.5020401@ev1.net> Was ....? You mean Don Q is gone? What became of his horse and lance. I thought he was alive, well, and traveling with the Rokke crew! Two other thoughts(?) -- just picture the results of a single LOBA (loss of blade accident) in a ranch of 800 windmills (why are they called turbines when they use propellers?) On the larger wind ranches, couldn't they store excessive wind in giant inflatable plastic bags contained in big compactors so that the inflated bags could then be pressed to make wind during calm hours? Think I'm going for some good baked beans for breakfast.... Cheers, Maury&Dog (maurysis@ev1.net) ========================== Rick Orthen wrote: >That was an impossible dream of Don Quixote. > >Rick Orthen > >-----Original Message----- >From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus >Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 9:50 AM >To: Maury Siskel; Mark Sonter >Cc: radsafe@radlab.nl >Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 > >Just out of curiousity, how many windmills would it take to power a steel mill? Or a city of 1 million >people? Not just their homes. > > From colette.tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca Wed Jun 15 17:21:59 2005 From: colette.tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca (Colette Tremblay) Date: Wed Jun 15 17:22:16 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NukAlert AND Flu Vaccine In-Reply-To: <20050614223030.24571.qmail@web81809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050614223030.24571.qmail@web81809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi: Please allow me to disagree. An avian flu pandemia in the next years is very likely, and that would mean millions ot deaths. A special report was published in Nature about 3 weeks ago. Il is freely available at: http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/avianflu/index.html It demonstrates that most governments are not well prepared to protect their citizens. I would rather stock up on N-95 masks and antiviral drugs like Tamiflu than on Nukalert. Sincerely, Colette Tremblay At 15:30 -0700 14/06/05, howard long wrote: >John, I, too, am concerned about avian flu (attached) > >Do you have fire insurance on your home? >That event is also highly unlikely and more cost to insure than NukAlert. > >Howard Long > >John Jacobus wrote: >Currently, I more concerned about an out break of >avian flu. Our health care system is certainly not >capable of handling such a natural event. -- Colette Tremblay Agente de radioprotection Universit? Laval T?l?phone : (418) 656-2131 poste 2893 T?l?copie : (418) 656-5617 courriel : colette.tremblay@ssp.ulaval.ca Site Web : www.ssp.ulaval.ca/sgc/radioprotection From james at bovik.org Wed Jun 15 17:31:44 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Wed Jun 15 17:31:59 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] request for comments on 10 CFR 20 revisions recognizing nonradiological toxicity Message-ID: <42B049E0.509@bovik.org> I want to express deep gratitude to everyone who has acknowledged the problems I have been discussing both on and off list over the past several days. I will respect requests for anonymity, but I would like to request that anyone who wants to send me important information and remain anonymous should please create a throw-away webmail account to do so, and not include any personally identifying information, in case my email ever gets subpoenaed or something. The Federal Register published my rulemaking petition for recognition of the developmental and reproductive toxicity of heavy metals today: http://www.bovik.org/du/NRC-PRM-20-26.pdf Please send a comment before August 29th to SECY@nrc.gov with a subject line such as: comments on PRM-20-26 toxicity petition I recommend that you include the following points: 1. Current regulations ignore the developmental and reproductive toxicity of heavy metal radionuclides, and are at present designed only to prevent kidney failure. 2. The reproductive toxicology profile for uranium combustion product inhalation in humans is currently unknown with any accuracy beyond 14 years (i.e., since the February 1991 exposures) and has shown an increasing and accelerating tendency, consistent with the fact that uranium accumulates in testes damaging sperm production cells and increasing chromosome damage over time. 3. It is completely unethical and immoral to allow any release of a known reproductive toxin without a fully established toxicology profile. Doing so is reckless and negligent; to willfully allow such releases is potentially a crime. 4. Regulators should attempt to extrapolate the existing known toxicology profile of heavy metal radionuclides and assume the worst case within the projections' 95% confidence intervals, and in an abundance of caution allow at least a two order-of-magnitude margin of error for limiting the increase in congenital malformations in children of the exposed to 5% after 30 years. Sincerely, James Salsman From hflong at pacbell.net Wed Jun 15 18:40:35 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Wed Jun 15 18:40:46 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Damage from Regulating U exposure In-Reply-To: <42B049E0.509@bovik.org> Message-ID: <20050615164035.65359.qmail@web81801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> As a physician with Public Health training, I see no credible evidence of damage from U, except for obvious, extreme exposure as in mining, bombs or careless handling - either from radiation or chemical toxicity. This is NOT like neurological damage from lead in paint or fuel additive, which was properly regulated. Regulation as proposed by Salsman below IS damaging. HPs see in production of nuclear power, the economic disruption and failure to access energy and prosperity resulting from such throttles, regulating hormetic doses, . Do respond to Salsman's misguided fears! Howard Long James Salsman wrote: I want to express deep gratitude to everyone who has acknowledged the problems I have been discussing both on and off list over the past several days. I will respect requests for anonymity, but I would like to request that anyone who wants to send me important information and remain anonymous should please create a throw-away webmail account to do so, and not include any personally identifying information, in case my email ever gets subpoenaed or something. The Federal Register published my rulemaking petition for recognition of the developmental and reproductive toxicity of heavy metals today: http://www.bovik.org/du/NRC-PRM-20-26.pdf Please send a comment before August 29th to SECY@nrc.gov with a subject line such as: comments on PRM-20-26 toxicity petition I recommend that you include the following points: 1. Current regulations ignore the developmental and reproductive toxicity of heavy metal radionuclides, and are at present designed only to prevent kidney failure. 2. The reproductive toxicology profile for uranium combustion product inhalation in humans is currently unknown with any accuracy beyond 14 years (i.e., since the February 1991 exposures) and has shown an increasing and accelerating tendency, consistent with the fact that uranium accumulates in testes damaging sperm production cells and increasing chromosome damage over time. 3. It is completely unethical and immoral to allow any release of a known reproductive toxin without a fully established toxicology profile. Doing so is reckless and negligent; to willfully allow such releases is potentially a crime. 4. Regulators should attempt to extrapolate the existing known toxicology profile of heavy metal radionuclides and assume the worst case within the projections' 95% confidence intervals, and in an abundance of caution allow at least a two order-of-magnitude margin of error for limiting the increase in congenital malformations in children of the exposed to 5% after 30 years. Sincerely, James Salsman _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From james at bovik.org Wed Jun 15 18:58:38 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Wed Jun 15 18:58:54 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Damage from Regulating U exposure In-Reply-To: <20050615164035.65359.qmail@web81801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050615164035.65359.qmail@web81801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42B05E3E.2070301@bovik.org> Dear Dr. Long: Thank you for your message. I do not dismiss hormetic arguments, although I believe there is ample evidence that the individual variation of response to hormetic dosages precludes their utility in policy. Please have a look at this: http://www.bovik.org/du/devtox-mice.pdf What would you recommend as an appropriate daily dose of uranium? Sincerely, James > / As a physician with Public Health training, I see no credible > evidence of damage from U, except for obvious, extreme exposure as in > mining, bombs or careless handling - either from radiation or chemical > toxicity. This is NOT like neurological damage from lead in paint or > fuel additive, which was properly regulated./ > > /Regulation as proposed by Salsman below IS damaging./ > /HPs see /in production of nuclear power, /the economic disruption and > failure to access energy and prosperity resulting from such throttles,/ > regulating hormetic doses, . > > Do respond to Salsman's misguided fears! > > Howard Long > > */James Salsman /* wrote: > > I want to express deep gratitude to everyone who has acknowledged > the problems I have been discussing both on and off list over the > past several days. I will respect requests for anonymity, but I > would like to request that anyone who wants to send me important > information and remain anonymous should please create a throw-away > webmail account to do so, and not include any personally identifying > information, in case my email ever gets subpoenaed or something. > > The Federal Register published my rulemaking petition for recognition > of the developmental and reproductive toxicity of heavy metals today: > > http://www.bovik.org/du/NRC-PRM-20-26.pdf > > Please send a comment before August 29th to SECY@nrc.gov with a > subject line such as: comments on PRM-20-26 toxicity petition > > I recommend that you include the following points: > > 1. Current regulations ignore the developmental and reproductive > toxicity of heavy metal radionuclides, and are at present designed > only to prevent kidney failure. > > 2. The reproductive toxicology profile for uranium combustion > product inhalation in humans is currently unknown with any accuracy > beyond 14 years (i.e., since the February 1991 exposures) and has > shown an increasing and accelerating tendency, consistent with the > fact that uranium accumulates in testes damaging sperm production > cells and increasing chromosome damage over time. > > 3. It is completely unethical and immoral to allow any release of > a known reproductive toxin without a fully established toxicology > profile. Doing so is reckless and negligent; to willfully allow > such releases is potentially a crime. > > 4. Regulators should attempt to extrapolate the existing known > toxicology profile of heavy metal radionuclides and assume the > worst case within the projections' 95% confidence intervals, and > in an abundance of caution allow at least a two order-of-magnitude > margin of error for limiting the increase in congenital > malformations in children of the exposed to 5% after 30 years. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list > radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and > understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other > settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jun 15 19:43:30 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed Jun 15 19:43:40 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Another Chernobyl tourist story Message-ID: <20050615174330.28846.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> This appeared in today's New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/international/europe/15chernobyl.html? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- June 15, 2005 New Sight in Chernobyl's Dead Zone: Tourists By C. J. CHIVERS PRIPYAT, Ukraine, June 11 - Sometime after visiting the ruins of the Polissia Hotel, the darkened Energetic theater and the idled Ferris wheel, the minivans stopped again. Doors slid open. Six young Finnish men stepped out and followed their guide through a patch of temperate jungle that once was an urban courtyard. Branches draped down. Mud squished underfoot. A cloud of mosquitoes rose to the feast. The men stepped past discarded gas-mask filters to the entrance of a ghostly kindergarten. They fanned out with cameras, to work. Much was as the children and their teachers had left it 19 years ago. Tiny shoes littered the classroom floor. Dolls and wooden blocks remained on shelves. Soviet slogans exhorted children to study, to exercise, to prepare for a life of work. Much had also changed. Now there is rot, broken windows, rusting bed frames and paint falling away in great blisters and peels. And now there are tourists, participating in what may be the strangest vacation excursion available in the former Soviet space: the packaged tour of the Chernobyl exclusion zone, scene of the worst civilian disaster of the nuclear age. A 19-mile radius around the infamous power plant, the zone has largely been closed to the world since Chernobyl's Reactor No. 4 exploded on April 26, 1986, sending people to flight and exposing the Communist Party as an institution wormy with hypocrisy and lies. For nearly 20 years it has been a dark symbol of Soviet rule. Its name conjures memories of incompetence, horror, contamination, escape and sickness, as well as the party elite's disdain for Soviet citizens, who were called to parade in fallout on May Day while the leaders' families secretly fled. Now it is a destination, luring people in. "It is amazing," said Ilkka Jahnukainen, 22, as he wandered the empty city here that housed the plant's workers and families, roughly 45,000 people in all. "So dreamlike and silent." The word Chernobyl also long ago became a dreary, shopworn joke, shorthand for contaminated wasteland. But Chernobylinterinform, the zone's information agency, says its chaperoned tours do not carry health risks. This is because, the agency says, radiation levels here have always been uneven. And most of the zone is far cleaner than it was in 1986, when radiation levels were strong enough in places to kill even trees. A lethal exposure of radiation ranges from 300 to 500 roentgens an hour; levels in the tour areas vary from 15 to several hundred microroentgens an hour. A microroentgen is one-millionth of a roentgen. Dangers at these levels, the agency says, lie in long-term exposure. Still, the zone in northern Ukraine has much more radioactive spots than those where tourists typically go. So there are rules, which Yuriy Tatarchuk, a government interpreter who served as the Finns' guide, listed. Don't stray. Stay on concrete and asphalt, where exposure risks are lower than on soil. Don't touch anything. (This one proved impossible. Tours involve climbing cluttered staircases and stepping through debris. Handholds are inevitable.) No matter its inconveniences or potential for medical worry, the zone possesses the allure of the forbidden and a promise of rare, personal insights into history. Its popularity as a destination is increasing. Few tourists came in 2002, the year it opened for such visits, according to Marina Polyakova, of Chernobylinterinform. In 2004 about 870 arrived, she said, a pace tourists are matching this year. Tourists cannot wander the zone on their own. One-day group excursions cost $200 to $400, including transportation and a meal. The tour on Saturday began with a drive through meadows, marshes and forest, belts of green broken by glimpses of gap-roofed houses and crumbling barns. It is what Mary Mycio, a Ukrainian-American lawyer in Kiev and author of a soon-to-be released book, "Wormwood Forest: A Natural History of Chernobyl," calls a "radioactive wilderness," an accidental sanctuary populated by wolves, boars and endangered birds. Its beauty cannot be overstated. Soon reminders of the grim history appeared. The tour stopped at a graveyard of vehicles and helicopters used to fight Chernobyl's fires. Roughly 2,000 radioactive machines are parked here - fire trucks, ambulances, armored vehicles, trucks, aircraft. Two tourists slipped through the barbed wire and wandered the junkyard, taking pictures for a Web site they plan to make of the trip. The rest roamed the edge, awed. "I cannot find words," said Juha Vaittinen, 22. The minivans then headed to Chernobyl proper for a briefing on the accident. Next stop: the nuclear plant and "sarcophagus," the concrete-and-steel shell built to contain Reactor No. 4's radioactive spew. Mr. Tatarchuk held up a radiation detector - 470 microroentgens per hour. The Finns posed for a group shot. Motivations for coming here are many. The Finnish tourists, all in their 20's, said they had an affinity for lonely, abandoned places, and the zone so far exceeded the forgotten homes, farms or industrial spaces in Finland that its draw became irresistible. They flew to Kiev from Helsinki solely for the trip. Mr. Tatarchuk said others had turned up because they were curious about the disaster, or wished to enter an accidental preserve of Soviet life. Bird-watchers have visited to catalogue the zone's resurgent life. One group came for a hoax. About two years ago, Mr. Tatarchuk said, a Ukrainian woman booked a tour, wore a leather biker jacket and posed for pictures. Soon there appeared a Web site in which the woman, using the name Elena, claimed that she had been given an unlimited pass by her father, a nuclear physicist and Chernobyl researcher ("Thank you, Daddy!" she wrote) and now roamed the ruins at will on her Kawasaki Big Ninja. The site, www.kiddofspeed.com, billed as a tale "where one can ride with no stoplights, no police, no danger to hit some cage or some dog," was a sensation, duping uncountable viewers before being discredited. The Finns said they had seen the Web site, and hoped their planned site would be as popular. On the day of their tour, the most haunting destination came last: Pripyat, a city left behind. "Heralded as the world's youngest city when it opened its doors in the mid-1970's," Ms. Mycio writes, "Pripyat also turned out to be its shortest lived." The city was encased on this day in a silence broken by breezes sighing through rustling trees. A heavier hush resided in buildings, where drops of water plopped loudly into puddles, and glass squeaked as it broke underfoot. Built on marshes, the place smelled of peat. At the amusement park, near idled bumper cars, Mr. Tatarchuk's monitor registered 144 microroentgens an hour. He moved four feet away, to a mat of damp green moss. It read 823. "Stay off the moss," he said. The moss is all around. Pripyat, both a time capsule of the Soviet Union and a monument to its folly and pain, is being consumed. What looters have not sacked or stolen succumbs now to the elements and time. A cafe patio atop the Polissia Hotel, offering views to the reactor that ruined this place, has been colonized by birch trees. One stands roughly seven feet tall, climbing skyward from a crack in the high-rise's tiles. Fine views of Pripyat are available from among these misplaced trees, including one in the direction of the reactor that reveals an empty clinic bearing an enormous sign. "The health of the people," it reads, "is the wealth of the country." Mr. Tatarchuk, looking down over buckling rooftops, repeated those words in Russian, then allowed himself a knowing, head-shaking smile. Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rad_chp at yahoo.com Wed Jun 15 20:42:34 2005 From: rad_chp at yahoo.com (Tosh Ushino) Date: Wed Jun 15 20:42:44 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] So. Calif. Chapter of HPS Meeting on June 29th Message-ID: <20050615184234.54986.qmail@web60321.mail.yahoo.com> Ladies and Gentlemen, The Southern California Chapter of the Health physics Society will hold a meeting on Wednesday, June 29th. Speaker: Mr. Ed Bailey, Chief, Radiologic Health Branch, California Department of Health Services Topic: ?State of the State? Social Hour: 5:00 PM Dinner 6:00 PM Speaker: 7:00 PM Location: TAIX Restaurant, 1911 W. Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA USA Phone:(213) 484-1265 Dinner will be $25 per person. The selections are: 1) Beef Bourguignon (Tender pieces of beef in Burgundy wine mushroom sauce) 2) Grilled Fresh Filet of Salmon (served with a Champagne sauce) 3) Vegetarian pasta can also be provided upon request Please send email to me (tushino@dosimetry.com) with your dinner selection(s). Please pay at the door. Thank you, and look forward to seeing you there. Tosh Ushino President-Elect, SCCHPS __________________________________ Toshihide Ushino, CHP Research Director Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue, Irvine, CA 92614 USA Phone: (949) 419-2413/(888) 437-1714 x2413 Email: tushino@dosimetry.com Web page: www.dosimetry.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jjcohen at prodigy.net Wed Jun 15 21:15:58 2005 From: jjcohen at prodigy.net (Jerry Cohen) Date: Wed Jun 15 21:15:39 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 References: <9B9410BB35BC3443BEA0369E880B0BA50104DB4B@piex01.pi.nmcco.net> Message-ID: <002e01c571de$a9bc5e60$d5fce245@domainnotset.invalid> Maury et al, Not only would there be moral sanctions for those who choose to exploit the natural winds, but surely the government would need to collect special taxes from those who benefit from such questionable practices. Jerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Flanigan, Floyd" To: "Maury Siskel" ; "Mark Sonter" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:17 AM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 > Maury, > Just remember the moral implications when going into the field of wind husbandry. This could lead to cloning and in the end, mankind could end up trying to play 'God' in determining which winds were better than others , which winds should be allowed to reproduce and which would be sterilized. We cannot allow ourselves to become insensitive to the rights and feelings of these winds. If we are not careful, in time, hackneyed phrases such as 'Free as the wind' could loose their meaning. I don't even want to go into the possible can of proverbial worms we could be opening when it comes to the gusts and gales! > > Floyd W.Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P. > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl]On > Behalf Of Maury Siskel > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:40 AM > To: Mark Sonter > Cc: radsafe@radlab.nl > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 > > > Hi Mark, > What on earth is wrong with wind farms? Living in Nebraska where we had > plenty of wind most of the time was great. In many other localities, > life would have been much more bearable if there had been more wind on > high temperature days. It seems likely that if we can build farms that > will grow more wind, the effort should be undertaken post haste if not > maybe even right away. > > Think about it! I'll bet that with a little ingenuity we could splice > different species of young wind plants for some fabulous results. And > consider the potential of genetic wind engineering to grow winds that > are insect resistant and, best of all, a variety of temperature > variations. Cool wind plants should produce great revenue in the > southern US during the summer. And the hot humid wind plants could be > cultivated on some other continents to generate tremendous export > revenues as well as climate modification in the desert interiors of some > continents. The potential wealth from hot air plant seedlings in public > buildings in Washington DC would know no limit and could be exported all > over the whole world! > > Gosh! All these new industries ... and first suggested on Radsafe ... > Wow! Mark, could we start a new business together? I'm overwhelmed! > Cheers, > Maury&Dog (Maury Siskel maurysis@ev1.net) > > ============= > Mark Sonter wrote: > > > "It's time to end the foolishness and start building wind farms" ---- > > I think that says it all, doesn't it..... > > > > It must surely be obvious now to everybody that this thread is just a > > waste of time and bandwidth. > > > > Mark Sonter > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From Roy.Herren at med.va.gov Thu Jun 16 00:03:19 2005 From: Roy.Herren at med.va.gov (Roy.Herren@med.va.gov) Date: Thu Jun 16 00:03:06 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Gamma detector proves less invasive, more accurate for seed migra tion Message-ID: <6884EB498415D411A71A0000F803A46810DB7849@VHASFCEXC1> The following article appeared today on AuntMinnie.com. I would appreciate your thoughts, and feedback on this issue. Any opinions in this e-mail are solely those of the author, and are not represented as those of the VA Medical Center San Francisco, CA, the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, or the US Government. Roy Herren Physical Science Technician Radiation Safety Branch of the Radiology Department Veterans Affairs Medical Center San Francisco, CA =================================================================== Gamma detector proves less invasive, more accurate for seed migration 6/15/2005 By: Shalmali Pal Now that scintillator-based detectors are on the scene, x-rays should be jettisoned for assessing embolized seed migration in the lungs, according to radiation oncologists in Canada. "The seed-migration detector appears to be convenient, cost-effective and noninvasive ... (and) doesn't expose patients to any additional radiation," wrote Dr. Janelle Morrier and colleagues in a poster presentation at the 2005 American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) meeting in San Francisco. For this study, 155 patients (8,717 seeds) at Laval University in Quebec were scanned for seed migration in a one-year period. The detector was composed of a gamma scintillation probe and a count rate meter. An in-house collimation cap was added to the detection window of the probe, the authors said. Detector response profiles were first taken with and without the collimator using an iodine-125 seed and a water phantom. The results showed a seed migration rate of 0.47%, or 41 out of 8,717 seeds. Twenty-one percent of the patients had at least one embolized seed. The migration detector found all of the dislodged seeds versus radiographs, which found 68%, and fluoroscopy, which found 90%. Four seeds were found with the detector but were not seen with either imaging modality, the authors stated. Seed migration based on fluoroscopy alone would have led to a 12.1% false-negative rate; with x-ray alone, the false-negative rate would have been 39.4%. "Moreover, fluoroscopy and radiographs would have required ... an extra radiation dose," they wrote. "The recommendation to perform chest radiographs to scan the lung for embolized seeds should be revised as the scintillator-based seed-migration detection presents a superior efficacy and a lower false-negative rate." The researchers also suggested that x-ray be reserved for documentation of positive migration cases. By Shalmali Pal AuntMinnie.com staff writer June 15, 2005 From Brent.Rogers at environment.nsw.gov.au Thu Jun 16 02:32:48 2005 From: Brent.Rogers at environment.nsw.gov.au (Rogers Brent) Date: Thu Jun 16 02:33:25 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 Message-ID: Maury Do you think perhaps the agri-bio-wind scientists would be able to come up with winds rich in radon progeny thus facilitating those wishing to get a hormetic dose? Brent Rogers Manager Radiation Operations Unit NSW Environment Protection Authority Department of Environment and Conservation *+61 2 9995 5986 *+61 2 9995 6603 * PO Box A290 Sydney South 1232 -----Original Message----- From: Maury Siskel [mailto:maurysis@ev1.net] Sent: Wednesday, 15 June 2005 10:40 PM To: Mark Sonter Cc: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 Hi Mark, What on earth is wrong with wind farms? Living in Nebraska where we had plenty of wind most of the time was great. In many other localities, life would have been much more bearable if there had been more wind on high temperature days. It seems likely that if we can build farms that will grow more wind, the effort should be undertaken post haste if not maybe even right away. Think about it! I'll bet that with a little ingenuity we could splice different species of young wind plants for some fabulous results. And consider the potential of genetic wind engineering to grow winds that are insect resistant and, best of all, a variety of temperature variations. Cool wind plants should produce great revenue in the southern US during the summer. And the hot humid wind plants could be cultivated on some other continents to generate tremendous export revenues as well as climate modification in the desert interiors of some continents. The potential wealth from hot air plant seedlings in public buildings in Washington DC would know no limit and could be exported all over the whole world! Gosh! All these new industries ... and first suggested on Radsafe ... Wow! Mark, could we start a new business together? I'm overwhelmed! Cheers, Maury&Dog (Maury Siskel maurysis@ev1.net) ============= Mark Sonter wrote: > "It's time to end the foolishness and start building wind farms" ---- > I think that says it all, doesn't it..... > > It must surely be obvious now to everybody that this thread is just a > waste of time and bandwidth. > > Mark Sonter _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ This e-mail is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it immediately and notify the sender. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly and with authority states them to be the views of the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) which now incorporates the NSW Environment Protection Authority. The Department accepts no liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email and recommends that the recipient check this email and any attachments for viruses. From hflong at pacbell.net Thu Jun 16 03:12:25 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Thu Jun 16 03:12:35 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Damage from Regulating U exposure In-Reply-To: <42B05E3E.2070301@bovik.org> Message-ID: <20050616011225.50619.qmail@web81803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> "The dose makes the poison" mg/Kg in the mice (below) is thousands of times the dose of gold given arthritis patients, or of cobalt given pernicious anemia patients in B-12. I still see no evidence of damage to animals or humans by any dose of U . Over-regulation, as in picocurie clean-ups, do. much more harm than good.. Howard Long James Salsman wrote: Dear Dr. Long: Thank you for your message. I do not dismiss hormetic arguments, although I believe there is ample evidence that the individual variation of response to hormetic dosages precludes their utility in policy. Please have a look at this: http://www.bovik.org/du/devtox-mice.pdf What would you recommend as an appropriate daily dose of uranium? Sincerely, James > / As a physician with Public Health training, I see no credible > evidence of damage from U, except for obvious, extreme exposure as in > mining, bombs or careless handling - either from radiation or chemical > toxicity. This is NOT like neurological damage from lead in paint or > fuel additive, which was properly regulated./ > > /Regulation as proposed by Salsman below IS damaging./ > /HPs see /in production of nuclear power, /the economic disruption and > failure to access energy and prosperity resulting from such throttles,/ > regulating hormetic doses, . > > Do respond to Salsman's misguided fears! > > Howard Long From maurysis at ev1.net Thu Jun 16 03:43:40 2005 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Thu Jun 16 03:44:33 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42B0D94C.7010401@ev1.net> Imagination knows no limits. You have dreamt up a double duty solution. Us pro-NPP's would get materials for hormesis and the anti-NPP's would have their radon progeny to keep EPA and others occupied for years to come. This really is fun, but Dog has reviewed this thread and suggested that we back off for a while .... Cheers, Maury&Dog (maurysis@ev1.net) ___________ Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps. ========================== Rogers Brent wrote: > Maury > > Do you think perhaps the agri-bio-wind scientists would be able to > come up > with winds rich in radon progeny thus facilitating those wishing to get a > hormetic dose? > > Brent Rogers > Manager Radiation Operations Unit > NSW Environment Protection Authority > Department of Environment and Conservation > *+61 2 9995 5986 > *+61 2 9995 6603 > * PO Box A290 Sydney South 1232 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Maury Siskel [mailto:maurysis@ev1.net] > Sent: Wednesday, 15 June 2005 10:40 PM > To: Mark Sonter > Cc: radsafe@radlab.nl > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 > > > Hi Mark, > What on earth is wrong with wind farms? Living in Nebraska where we had > plenty of wind most of the time was great. In many other localities, > life would have been much more bearable if there had been more wind on > high temperature days. It seems likely that if we can build farms that > will grow more wind, the effort should be undertaken post haste if not > maybe even right away. > > Think about it! I'll bet that with a little ingenuity we could splice > different species of young wind plants for some fabulous results. And > consider the potential of genetic wind engineering to grow winds that > are insect resistant and, best of all, a variety of temperature > variations. Cool wind plants should produce great revenue in the > southern US during the summer. And the hot humid wind plants could be > cultivated on some other continents to generate tremendous export > revenues as well as climate modification in the desert interiors of some > continents. The potential wealth from hot air plant seedlings in public > buildings in Washington DC would know no limit and could be exported all > over the whole world! > > Gosh! All these new industries ... and first suggested on Radsafe ... > Wow! Mark, could we start a new business together? I'm overwhelmed! > Cheers, > Maury&Dog (Maury Siskel maurysis@ev1.net) > > ============= > Mark Sonter wrote: > > > "It's time to end the foolishness and start building wind farms" ---- > > I think that says it all, doesn't it..... > > > > It must surely be obvious now to everybody that this thread is just a > > waste of time and bandwidth. > > > > Mark Sonter > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list > radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and > understood the > RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > > This e-mail is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain > confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the > intended recipient, please delete it immediately and notify the > sender. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual > sender except where the sender expressly and with authority states > them to be the views of the Department of Environment and Conservation > (NSW) which now incorporates the NSW Environment Protection Authority. > The Department accepts no liability for any loss or damage arising > from the use of this email and recommends that the recipient check > this email and any attachments for viruses. > From hflong at pacbell.net Thu Jun 16 03:55:34 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Thu Jun 16 03:55:45 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fire Insurance AND NukAlert AND Flu Vaccine In-Reply-To: <20050615120253.4872.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050616015534.24463.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Likelyhood of need for a NukAlert is now in about the same order of magnitude as your house burning down. If you have fire insurance and smoke detectors, it would be similarly prudent for HPs, "firemen" looked to in any such unlikely catastrophe, to prepare. Have you used the CPR you learned? Does that mean you wasted your time or money? Likewise, NucAlert (or similar detection - I have no stock in it) Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: I am not sure what your letter-to-the-editor on intradermal vaccinations or fire insurance has to do with the discussion. My comments refer to the fact that our concerns are misdirected. We are spending significant resources on detection are preparedness for radiological weapons. Yet, natural biological agents, like viruses have kill more individuals. Rather than running around with radiation meters attached to our wrists, we need to reassess the real dangers to our societies. --- howard long wrote: > John, I, too, am concerned about avian flu > (attached) > > Do you have fire insurance on your home? > That event is also highly unlikely and more cost to > insure than NukAlert. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Currently, I more concerned about an out break of > avian flu. Our health care system is certainly not > capable of handling such a natural event. > > --- howard long wrote: > > > Karl, Chuck and HPs, > > Jane M Orient MD, Pres, Physicians for Civil > > Defense, (prev. college physics teacher) > > notifies June 10, 2005, "If our government fails > to > > prevent the No-Longer-Unthinkable event, > > DHS equipment - and policy - will keep rescue > teams > > miles away from the area!" > > > > "Local officials will have no way to distinguish > > lethal from negligible doses of radiation, or to > > determine the adequacy of shelter. Millions could > > die an agonizing death from PREVENTABLE > > radiation sickness - unless you help." > > > > "Put radiation monitoring in the hands of EVERY > > citizen"."We have the technology: Nukalert" - > > > > The one on my key chain has imprinted: > > # chirps 1 - 41 days to get 100rad, 2- 20d, 3-10d, > > 4-5d, 6-1d, 7-15hr, 8-8hr, 9-4hr, 10+ <2hr > > Neat! get one! www.NukAlert.com > > > > Howard Long MD MPH. > > From ncohen12 at comcast.net Thu Jun 16 04:26:01 2005 From: ncohen12 at comcast.net (Norm Cohen) Date: Thu Jun 16 04:30:02 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hanford Contamination Spreads In-Reply-To: <77B61276-DDB7-11D9-A917-000A959C43EA@verizon.net> References: <77B61276-DDB7-11D9-A917-000A959C43EA@verizon.net> Message-ID: ------- Forwarded message ------- From: "Janette Sherman" To: " Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:06:44 -0400 SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/228573_hanford15.html Radioactive contamination at Hanford is on the move It is 'not just staying in place,' warns report by watchdog group Wednesday, June 15, 2005 By LISA STIFFLER SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER Radioactive dust in a Tri-Cities attic and plutonium-tainted clams in the Columbia River are red flags signaling that contamination from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation is in the environment and moving into the food chain, a watchdog group says. After finding radiation in river mud, mulberry bushes and deer and mouse scat, the Government Accountability Project says better testing is needed to determine how widespread the potentially dangerous material is and where it's going. The Seattle-based non-profit group, which is releasing its findings today, says it has measured radiation in lichen that is twice as high as previously believed. "It's not just staying in place," said Tom Carpenter, director of the group's nuclear oversight campaign. "It's getting to areas where there are people." The U.S. Department of Energy spends $2.8 million a year monitoring radiation in water, soil, plants and animals on and around the multibillion-dollar Hanford cleanup project. DOE officials and their contractors said the watchdog group's results were not surprising and that they encourage outside scrutiny. "The levels that they're dealing with really aren't out of line with what we've been dealing with for years," said Ted Poston, an environmental manager with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the company tracking environmental pollution for DOE. "The Department of Energy encourages environmental groups ... to do independent sampling and take us to task," said Dana Ward, DOE project manager for the public safety and resource-protection program. Ward and Poston said they needed more time to carefully review the report to determine its validity. Regardless, the government is protecting the public through its monitoring, Ward said. Key findings from the GAP report include finding traces of plutonium in pike minnows and clams pulled from the Columbia near Hanford, in south-central Washington. Tests are still being performed on a sturgeon recently caught offshore. Other specimens analyzed in the $50,000 study were collected last year. Contamination was also found upstream of Hanford, leading to speculation that fish could be spreading the radioactivity, though there could also be non-Hanford sources for the contamination. Land across the river from the cleanup is part of the Hanford Reach National Monument and accessible to the public. The segment of river wrapping around Hanford is renowned as part of the last free-flowing stretch of the extensively dammed river. "People are out there fishing and eating the fish," Carpenter said. If the government is finding plutonium in the pike minnow and clams, "they sure haven't reported it." It's well known that radioactive material escaped from Hanford, home of the world's first full-scale nuclear reactor and source of atomic bomb fuel. Since its creation during World War II, billions of gallons of waste were dumped into the soil and radiation released into the air. Back in the 1960s -- Hanford's heyday -- radiation from the site was measured as far as the coasts of California and Canada, said Dirk Dunning, a Hanford nuclear specialist with the Oregon Department of Energy. "Was there stuff released? Unquestionably," he said. Government officials know that radioactive groundwater is still flowing to the river tainted with radiation. It's still in the soil at the 586-square-mile reservation and has been detected in tumbleweeds that roll across the desert site. What concerns Carpenter is the presence of the radioactive and other dangerous chemicals moving from the soil and water and into plants and animals offsite that can spread the contamination, increasing the risk of exposure for people. None of the radiation detected presented an immediate risk to human health, according to the report. Even so, the results worry Tim Jarvis, a former toxicologist with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Jarvis, who reviewed the report, said the detection of radiation in the attic dust of a Richland home was "shocking." "I'm sitting here in Richland. I've got a 25-year-old home," Jarvis said. "I don't know how much radiation's in my attic." The researchers did not determine what type of radiation was in the attic, but know it's not plutonium and does not pose a risk to people living there. Dunning said that he had not studied the report. Other researchers with his department had read an earlier draft and noted in a written response concerns with its limited scope. The response stated that it "lacks scientific rigor." Carpenter and Marco Kaltofen, president of Boston Chemical Data Corp., which did the sampling for the report, agree that their research is not definitive. They want more testing done, preferably by an independent source outside of DOE or their contractor. Federal officials said they'd be willing to discuss the research with the watchdog group. A better assessment of regional contamination is essential, critics said, if the cleanup -- which could cost $60 billion and continue until 2035 -- is going to be successful. "This study says, 'We're a third party. We're citizens. And where we look, we find (radioactivity).' " Jarvis said. "So DOE, where in the hell did it go? How much, and where is it? "If DOE knows it has escaped, why isn't it out getting it?" he asked. "It's their job." P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at 206-448-8042 or lisastiffler@seattlepi.com ? 1998-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer -- Coalition for Peace and Justice UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982 ncohen12@comcast.net; http://www.unplugsalem.org http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org "A time comes when silence is betrayal. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought, within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world." - Martin Luther King Jr. -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.3/15 - Release Date: 6/14/05 From tdc at xrayted.com Thu Jun 16 04:44:09 2005 From: tdc at xrayted.com (Ted de Castro) Date: Thu Jun 16 04:44:15 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] X-Ray On Lights References: <061020051901.12961.42A9E3730006F391000032A121603759649C0A029D0E0DD209D29C0A030E06@att.net> Message-ID: <42B0E779.C99FB2A5@xrayted.com> None of these citations have anything at all to do with a light over the door. These refer to lights on the control console. james.g.barnes@att.net wrote: > > Peter; > > Here are some that immediately came to mind; I don't know if they are applicable to your situation, but a manufacturer would have to comply to them. > > [CITE: 21CFR1020.31] (Radiographic) > (j) Beam-on indicators. The x-ray control shall provide visual indication whenever x-rays are produced. In addition, a signal audible to the operator shall indicate that the exposure has terminated. > > [CITE: 21CFR1020.32] (Fluoro; not exactly a light, but still an alarm requirement. In this situation the concern may be that a warning light would interfere with the physician's "dark adapted" vision; this is speculation on my part) > > (h) Fluoroscopic timer. Means shall be provided to preset the cumulative on-time of the fluoroscopic tube. The maximum cumulative time of the timing device shall not exceed 5 minutes without resetting. A signal audible to the fluoroscopist shall indicate the completion of any preset cumulative on-time. Such signal shall continue to sound while x-rays are produced until the timing device is reset. As an alternative to the requirements of this paragraph, radiation therapy simulation systems may be provided with a means to indicate the total cumulative exposure time during which x-rays were produced, and which is capable of being reset between x-ray examinations. > > [CITE: 21CFR1020.33] (CT Equipment) > (h) Beam-on and shutter status indicators. (1) Means shall be provided on the control and on or near the housing of the scanning mechanism to provide visual indication when and only when x rays are produced and, if applicable, whether the shutter is open or closed. If the x-ray production period is less than one-half second, the indication of x-ray production shall be actuated for one-half second. Indicators at or near the housing of the scanning mechanism shall be discernible from any point external to the patient opening where insertion of any part of the human body into the primary beam is possible. > > The following are other references: > > NCRP Report #33, Medical X-ray and Gamma-Ray Protecton for Energies Up To 10 MeV. > > 3.2, Fixed Radiographic Equipment; 3.2.1 > (g): The control panel shall include a device (usually a milliammeter) to give positive indication of the production of x rays whenever the x-ray tube is energized. [It appears the mA meter is being substituted for a light.-jgb] > > 3.4, X-ray Therapy Equipment; 3.4.1 > (h): An easily discernible indicator which shows whether or not x rays are being produced shall be on the control panel. > > (r) An easily discernible or audible indicator which shows whether or not x rays are being produced should be provided in the treatment room for x-ray equipment capable of operating above 500 kVp. > > There are also THESE requirements for NON-medical systems. > > [CITE: 21CFR1020.40] > (7) Additional controls and indicators for cabinet x-ray systems designed to admit humans. For cabinet x-ray systems designed to admit humans there shall also be provided: > (i) A control within the cabinet for preventing and terminating x-ray generation, which cannot be reset, overridden or bypassed from the outside of the cabinet. > (ii) No means by which x-ray generation can be initiated from within the cabinet. > (iii) Audible and visible warning signals within the cabinet which are actuated for at least 10 seconds immediately prior to the first initiation of x-ray generation after closing any door designed to admit humans. Failure of any single component of the cabinet x-ray system shall not cause failure of both the audible and visible warning signals. > (iv) A visible warning signal within the cabinet which remains actuated when and only when x-rays are being generated, unless the x-ray generation period is less than one-half second in which case the indicators shall be activated for one-half second. > (v) Signs indicating the meaning of the warning signals provided pursuant to paragraphs (c)(7) (iii) and (iv) of this section and containing instructions for the use of the control provided pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i) of this section. These signs shall be legible, accessible to view, and illuminated when the main power control is in the ?on? position. > > Hope this is useful. > > Jim Barnes > > -------------- Original message from "Vernig, Peter G." : -------------- > > > If I might interrupt the debate about the toxicity and morality of DU and > > the educational backgrounds of the participants I have a real question that > > somebody on Radsafe might just help me with. > > > > All of our fixed x-ray rooms including the cath labs have lights that say > > X-Ray on and light up either when the rotor of a radiographic unit is > > spinning [for those of you not familiar with medical diagnostic x-rays the > > anode rotates to dissipate heat generated when the electrons strike the > > anode and usually the rotor spins in anticipation of the actual burst of > > electrons.] or when fluoro units are producing x-rays. > > > > It seems that most if not all of the other VAs have a variation on this. > > Wording may differ, one facility the light just goes on during x-rays so > > that unless you stare at it, you'd miss it for radiographic units. > > > > My question is does anybody know the origin of this. A reg, rule, or > > standard or best practice? > > > > The reason I ask is technology is expanding and we have a DEXA [dual energy > > x-ray analyzer] for bone densitometry which produces say 10% of less of the > > x-rays that a normal radiographic unit puts out and we are getting a hybrid > > SPECT/CT unit. The DEXA doesn't have such a light and we are tentatively > > planning on putting a light on the SPECT/CT. But if there is a standard or > > recommendation or some such it would be nice to know just what it says. BTW > > SPECT = single photon emission computed tomography, a type of gamma camera. > > > > Please don't bother with a check state regs or probably an NCRP. I have > > looked at both, but if anybody knows I would be very grateful for the > > information. > > > > Sorry to interrupt the political debate. > > > > Any opinions in this e-mail are solely those of the author, and are not > > represented as those of the VA Eastern Colorado HCS, the Dept. of Veterans > > Affairs, or the US Government. > > > > Peter G. Vernig, Radiation Safety Officer, MS-115, VA Eastern Colorado > > Health Care System, 1055 Clermont St. Denver, CO 80220, > > peter.vernig@med.va.gov, Phone= 303.399.8020 x2447; Fax = 303.393.5026, > > alternate fax, 303.393.5248 > > > > "...whatever is true, whatever is noble, 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 radsafe@radlab.nl > > > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the > > RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: > > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From kerrembaev at yahoo.com Thu Jun 16 05:33:13 2005 From: kerrembaev at yahoo.com (Emil) Date: Thu Jun 16 05:33:23 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Another Chernobyl tourist story In-Reply-To: <200506160151.j5G1oHr0010418@radlab.nl> Message-ID: <20050616033313.8077.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> John, I would imagine for that amount of money the tourists would be allowed to use Pripyat's Sport Complex with saunas and covered Olympic size pool.... Emil. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "John Jacobus" To: know_nukes@yahoogroups.com, "radsafe" Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Another Chernobyl tourist story This appeared in today's New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/international/europe/15chernobyl.html? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- June 15, 2005 New Sight in Chernobyl's Dead Zone: Tourists By C. J. CHIVERS PRIPYAT, Ukraine, June 11 - Sometime after visiting the ruins of the Polissia Hotel, the darkened Energetic theater and the idled Ferris wheel, the minivans stopped again. Doors slid open. Six young Finnish men stepped out and followed their guide through a patch of temperate jungle that once was an urban courtyard. Branches draped down. Mud squished underfoot. A cloud of mosquitoes rose to the feast. The men stepped past discarded gas-mask filters to the entrance of a ghostly kindergarten. They fanned out with cameras, to work. Much was as the children and their teachers had left it 19 years ago. Tiny shoes littered the classroom floor. Dolls and wooden blocks remained on shelves. Soviet slogans exhorted children to study, to exercise, to prepare for a life of work. Much had also changed. Now there is rot, broken windows, rusting bed frames and paint falling away in great blisters and peels. And now there are tourists, participating in what may be the strangest vacation excursion available in the former Soviet space: the packaged tour of the Chernobyl exclusion zone, scene of the worst civilian disaster of the nuclear age. A 19-mile radius around the infamous power plant, the zone has largely been closed to the world since Chernobyl's Reactor No. 4 exploded on April 26, 1986, sending people to flight and exposing the Communist Party as an institution wormy with hypocrisy and lies. For nearly 20 years it has been a dark symbol of Soviet rule. Its name conjures memories of incompetence, horror, contamination, escape and sickness, as well as the party elite's disdain for Soviet citizens, who were called to parade in fallout on May Day while the leaders' families secretly fled. Now it is a destination, luring people in. "It is amazing," said Ilkka Jahnukainen, 22, as he wandered the empty city here that housed the plant's workers and families, roughly 45,000 people in all. "So dreamlike and silent." The word Chernobyl also long ago became a dreary, shopworn joke, shorthand for contaminated wasteland. But Chernobylinterinform, the zone's information agency, says its chaperoned tours do not carry health risks. This is because, the agency says, radiation levels here have always been uneven. And most of the zone is far cleaner than it was in 1986, when radiation levels were strong enough in places to kill even trees. A lethal exposure of radiation ranges from 300 to 500 roentgens an hour; levels in the tour areas vary from 15 to several hundred microroentgens an hour. A microroentgen is one-millionth of a roentgen. Dangers at these levels, the agency says, lie in long-term exposure. Still, the zone in northern Ukraine has much more radioactive spots than those where tourists typically go. So there are rules, which Yuriy Tatarchuk, a government interpreter who served as the Finns' guide, listed. Don't stray. Stay on concrete and asphalt, where exposure risks are lower than on soil. Don't touch anything. (This one proved impossible. Tours involve climbing cluttered staircases and stepping through debris. Handholds are inevitable.) No matter its inconveniences or potential for medical worry, the zone possesses the allure of the forbidden and a promise of rare, personal insights into history. Its popularity as a destination is increasing. Few tourists came in 2002, the year it opened for such visits, according to Marina Polyakova, of Chernobylinterinform. In 2004 about 870 arrived, she said, a pace tourists are matching this year. Tourists cannot wander the zone on their own. One-day group excursions cost $200 to $400, including transportation and a meal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html From daitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Thu Jun 16 11:47:22 2005 From: daitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Thu Jun 16 11:47:49 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20050616044054.02b493d8@pop.nam.slb.com> At 07:32 PM 6/15/2005, Rogers Brent wrote: >Maury > >Do you think perhaps the agri-bio-wind scientists would be able to come up >with winds rich in radon progeny thus facilitating those wishing to get a >hormetic dose? I think it is more serious than that. After all, we KNOW that these winds are already loaded with hazardous DU particles, posing a serious radiological and toxological hazard. Therefore, wind should be classified as a Hazardous Substance and it behoves the government to regulate its usage and public exposure..... Doug From james at bovik.org Thu Jun 16 12:05:13 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Thu Jun 16 12:05:29 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] burning temperature of uranium supports nanoparticle formation Message-ID: <42B14ED9.5020206@bovik.org> I owe the nanoparticle contamination researchers an apology, in light of the fact that the burning temperature of small particles of uranium can apparently reach double that of the 1400 deg. C steady-state temperature of centimeter cubes, according to E.M. Mouradian, L. Baker, Jr., "Burning Temperatures of Uranium and Zirconium in Air," Nuclear Science and Engineering, vol. 15 (1963), p. 388-394, in particular Fig. 6 on page 392, and Fig. 3. Sincerely, James Salsman From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jun 16 13:55:47 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu Jun 16 13:55:58 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Neutron activation used to date gold from volcanic eruptions in trees Message-ID: <20050616115547.27697.qmail@web54301.mail.yahoo.com> I orginally received this through an announcement by the National Science Foundation at http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=PR05099 The Penn State University article is at http://live.psu.edu/story/12203 ---------------- Nuclear approach may help climate researchers pinpoint volcanic eruptions University Park, Pa. ?There's gold in them thar rings. Tree rings that is, and Penn State researchers are using the Breazeale Nuclear Reactor to measure gold and link the rings to volcanic eruptions. "Initially, when we began this work at Cornell University, we were simply looking to see what elements in tree rings could be measured using neutron activation analysis," says Dr. Kenan Unlu, professor of nuclear engineering and associate director for research of Penn State's Radiation Science and Engineering Center. "We can see a lot of elements, but it is easy to see the gold peak." When Peter I. Kuniholm, professor of archaeology and dendrochronology and director of the Malcolm and Carolyn Wiener Laboratory for Aegean and Near Eastern Dendrochronology at Cornell, saw which tree rings held the highest gold levels, he quickly recognized that they dated to years of known volcanic eruptions. Because trees add a ring a year to their trunks, if researchers know the cutting date of a tree or can calibrate the tree's rings against a previously dated tree, researchers can assign each ring accurately to a specific year. By isolated wood from just one ring, neutron activation analysis can measure the gold that the tree took up during that year with parts per billion sensitivity. Neutron activation analysis uses the neutrons produced by a nuclear reactor to create temporary radioactive isotopes in a sample. Because each isotope has its own gamma radiation signal, the gamma radiation signal strength indicates the amount of that element present. When Cornell's nuclear reactor at the Ward Center for Nuclear Sciences was shut down, Unlu moved the project, which was funded in part by the National Science Foundation, to Penn State's Breazeale Nuclear Reactor. The preliminary results of analysis of one tree for the years 1411 through 1988 were presented in a recent issue of the Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry. Working with Kuniholm and John J. Chiment, another researcher at the dendrochronology laboratory, and Corrnell undergraduate students Pam Sullivan, Meg Underwood and Danielle Hauck, Unlu analyzed 577 rings from a Bosnian or palebark pine from Greece. "We are looking at the last 500 to 600 years to gain confidence in the procedure," says Unlu. "The volcanic eruptions during that time are known, so we can make correlations. Then we will go back and look at the past 6,000 years." Six thousand years into the past is the depth of the samples currently at Cornell's dendrochronology laboratory. The lab has already dated approximately 4.5 million tree rings to this time. The researchers found that they successfully matched gold peaks to volcanic eruptions beginning with an eruption of the Soufriere Hills volcano in 1440 and including a 1480 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. However, the researchers also had high gold peaks for a number of years between 1480 and 1580 when there were no known volcanic eruptions. "When we see major gold peaks but no volcanoes, it could be forest fires," says Unlu. "We cannot really tell if we are seeing a global signal or a regional or local signal when we are looking at only one tree." How can a forest fire be confused with a major volcanic eruption? If the researchers are correct, easily. Unlu believes that the increased gold uptake during volcano years occurs because the volcanoes put large amounts of particulate matter into the atmosphere and change the environmental acidity as well as the rainfall, sunshine and temperature patterns creating a stressful situation for trees. The trees, to compensate for a lousy year, try to take up more nutrients, including copper, an essential element for tree growth and health. The gold is indiscriminately absorbed along with the copper, but the copper is used for tree metabolism while the gold remains in the new growth. Another possible cause of the increased gold uptake could be through the leaves because of direct fallout from the volcanic eruptions, but Unlu believes it is the darkness and stress that push the trees to search for copper among other elements. To eliminate forest fires and other local events, the researchers want to look at other trees from other areas. They are currently looking at two dated trees from Turkey and one from California. "The main problem in atmospheric science is they do not have enough data," says Hauck, now a graduate student in nuclear engineering at Penn State. "We want to correlate tree ring data with climate cycles to get a much better indication of what is natural and what is anthropogenic. Tree rings can help." Large volcanic eruptions put particles into the wind, into the jet stream and have a global, rather than only local effect. Unlu would also like to go back and check the samples with high gold for other elements. Because neutron activation analysis is nondestructive, and the samples are no longer radioactive after about a month, this reanalysis for other elements is possible. Unlu now has a Nuclear Engineering Education and Research grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to continue his analysis of tree rings and correlation to volcanic activity and other climate events. Photos Available at: http://www.psu.edu/ur/2005/treeringgoldphotos.html Contact A'ndrea Messer aem1@psu.edu http://live.psu.edu 814-865-9481 Contact Vicki Fong vfong@psu.edu http://live.psu.edu 814-865-9481 +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jun 16 14:28:37 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu Jun 16 14:28:48 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Gamma detector proves less invasive, more accurate for seed migra tion In-Reply-To: <6884EB498415D411A71A0000F803A46810DB7849@VHASFCEXC1> Message-ID: <20050616122837.34087.qmail@web54306.mail.yahoo.com> Since the scintillation scannning method seems to be superior in reducing the false-negative detection of seeds, I would think that it is superior to x-ray or fluoro. It would nice to see some estimate of additional radiation doses using those modalities. Sounds like they scanned the patients with a thin NaI probe with a lead collimator, then took a x-ray film for documentation. --- Roy.Herren@med.va.gov wrote: > The following article appeared today on > AuntMinnie.com. I would appreciate > your thoughts, and feedback on this issue. > > Any opinions in this e-mail are solely those of the > author, and are not > represented as those of the VA Medical Center San > Francisco, CA, the Dept. > of Veterans Affairs, or the US Government. > > Roy Herren > Physical Science Technician > Radiation Safety Branch of the Radiology Department > Veterans Affairs Medical Center San Francisco, CA > =================================================================== > > Gamma detector proves less invasive, more accurate > for seed migration > 6/15/2005 > By: Shalmali Pal > > > > > Now that scintillator-based detectors are on the > scene, x-rays should be > jettisoned for assessing embolized seed migration in > the lungs, according to > radiation oncologists in Canada. > > "The seed-migration detector appears to be > convenient, cost-effective and > noninvasive ... (and) doesn't expose patients to any > additional radiation," > wrote Dr. Janelle Morrier and colleagues in a poster > presentation at the > 2005 American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) meeting in > San Francisco. > > For this study, 155 patients (8,717 seeds) at Laval > University in Quebec > were scanned for seed migration in a one-year > period. The detector was > composed of a gamma scintillation probe and a count > rate meter. An in-house > collimation cap was added to the detection window of > the probe, the authors > said. Detector response profiles were first taken > with and without the > collimator using an iodine-125 seed and a water > phantom. > > The results showed a seed migration rate of 0.47%, > or 41 out of 8,717 seeds. > Twenty-one percent of the patients had at least one > embolized seed. The > migration detector found all of the dislodged seeds > versus radiographs, > which found 68%, and fluoroscopy, which found 90%. > Four seeds were found > with the detector but were not seen with either > imaging modality, the > authors stated. > > Seed migration based on fluoroscopy alone would have > led to a 12.1% > false-negative rate; with x-ray alone, the > false-negative rate would have > been 39.4%. > > "Moreover, fluoroscopy and radiographs would have > required ... an extra > radiation dose," they wrote. "The recommendation to > perform chest > radiographs to scan the lung for embolized seeds > should be revised as the > scintillator-based seed-migration detection presents > a superior efficacy and > a lower false-negative rate." The researchers also > suggested that x-ray be > reserved for documentation of positive migration > cases. > > By Shalmali Pal > AuntMinnie.com staff writer > June 15, 2005 +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jun 16 15:53:50 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu Jun 16 15:53:59 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Damage from Regulating U exposure In-Reply-To: <20050616011225.50619.qmail@web81803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050616135350.63514.qmail@web54301.mail.yahoo.com> Howard, Did you read the article? If you disagree with the conclusions of the investigators, what are your specific reasons? It has nothing to do with gold or cobalt in patients, of remediation. Try not to wander off of the subject. --- howard long wrote: > "The dose makes the poison" > > mg/Kg in the mice (below) is thousands of times the > dose of gold given arthritis patients, > or of cobalt given pernicious anemia patients in > B-12. > > I still see no evidence of damage to animals or > humans by any dose of U . > > Over-regulation, as in picocurie clean-ups, do. much > more harm than good.. > > Howard Long > > James Salsman wrote: > Dear Dr. Long: > > Thank you for your message. I do not dismiss > hormetic arguments, > although I believe there is ample evidence that the > individual > variation of response to hormetic dosages precludes > their utility > in policy. > > Please have a look at this: > http://www.bovik.org/du/devtox-mice.pdf > > What would you recommend as an appropriate daily > dose of uranium? > > Sincerely, > James > > > / As a physician with Public Health training, I > see no credible > > evidence of damage from U, except for obvious, > extreme exposure as in > > mining, bombs or careless handling - either from > radiation or chemical > > toxicity. This is NOT like neurological damage > from lead in paint or > > fuel additive, which was properly regulated./ > > > > /Regulation as proposed by Salsman below IS > damaging./ > > /HPs see /in production of nuclear power, /the > economic disruption and > > failure to access energy and prosperity resulting > from such throttles,/ > > regulating hormetic doses, . > > > > Do respond to Salsman's misguided fears! > > > > Howard Long > +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jun 16 16:03:11 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu Jun 16 16:03:23 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fire Insurance AND NukAlert AND Flu Vaccine In-Reply-To: <20050616015534.24463.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050616140311.67050.qmail@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Actually, the need for a NukeAlert is vanishingly small. How may radiogical releases have occurred off-site in the last 20 years that would elicited a response to your NukeAlert? Conversely, how many house fires have occurred in your city in the last year? How many heart attacks occur in your city each year? --- howard long wrote: > Likelyhood of need for a NukAlert is now in about > the same order of magnitude as your house burning > down. If you have fire insurance and smoke > detectors, it would be similarly prudent for HPs, > "firemen" looked to in any such unlikely > catastrophe, to prepare. > > Have you used the CPR you learned? Does that mean > you wasted your time or money? > > Likewise, NucAlert (or similar detection - I have no > stock in it) > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > I am not sure what your letter-to-the-editor on > intradermal vaccinations or fire insurance has to do > with the discussion. My comments refer to the fact > that our concerns are misdirected. We are spending > significant resources on detection are preparedness > for radiological weapons. Yet, natural biological > agents, like viruses have kill more individuals. > Rather than running around with radiation meters > attached to our wrists, we need to reassess the real > dangers to our societies. > > --- howard long wrote: > > > John, I, too, am concerned about avian flu > > (attached) > > > > Do you have fire insurance on your home? > > That event is also highly unlikely and more cost > to > > insure than NukAlert. > > > > Howard Long > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > Currently, I more concerned about an out break of > > avian flu. Our health care system is certainly not > > capable of handling such a natural event. > > > > --- howard long wrote: > > > > > Karl, Chuck and HPs, > > > Jane M Orient MD, Pres, Physicians for Civil > > > Defense, (prev. college physics teacher) > > > notifies June 10, 2005, "If our government fails > > to > > > prevent the No-Longer-Unthinkable event, > > > DHS equipment - and policy - will keep rescue > > teams > > > miles away from the area!" > > > > > > "Local officials will have no way to distinguish > > > lethal from negligible doses of radiation, or to > > > determine the adequacy of shelter. Millions > could > > > die an agonizing death from PREVENTABLE > > > radiation sickness - unless you help." > > > > > > "Put radiation monitoring in the hands of EVERY > > > citizen"."We have the technology: Nukalert" - > > > > > > The one on my key chain has imprinted: > > > # chirps 1 - 41 days to get 100rad, 2- 20d, > 3-10d, > > > 4-5d, 6-1d, 7-15hr, 8-8hr, 9-4hr, 10+ <2hr > > > Neat! get one! www.NukAlert.com > > > +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From Efforrer at aol.com Thu Jun 16 16:22:18 2005 From: Efforrer at aol.com (Efforrer@aol.com) Date: Thu Jun 16 16:22:30 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: X-Ray On Lights Message-ID: <6E227C77.3DFD5295.0070C40B@aol.com> As a former x-ray inspector I can say that a light over the door is generally not required. There does need to be a light to indicate that the unit is emitting x-rays in the room. Some people put a light over the door to warn others that x-rays are being emitted so they do not inadvertantly walk in. From Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV Thu Jun 16 16:57:23 2005 From: Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV (Conklin, Al) Date: Thu Jun 16 16:57:34 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hanford Contamination Spreads Message-ID: The actual report can be found at www.whistleblower.org. I haven't reviewed the whole report, but what I've looked at is very entertaining, though disturbing. The science is not there, and it hasn't been peer reviewed, but some people are taking it seriously. For example, they sampled one salmon, one sturgeon, and one old attic to get their results. They report biotransport on the Hanford site like its new news. Biotransport of radionuclides around Hanford is well documented and in the public record. I wrote some of it when I worked there 19 years ago. In fact, one past issue was game birds using the old cooling water ponds and transporting radioactivity off the site, then shot by hunters. Those ponds don't exist anymore, but there are other pathways, involving lots of animal and plant vectors: all in the public record. When they report mouse radionuclide levels higher in the 100 areas (by waste sites) than way downstream, my response is "well, duh". Of course there is and it isn't news. There was a really good interview on NPR yesterday that involved the authors of the "study" and Hanford representatives who do the monitoring. I think the audio can still be downloaded if anyone is interested. The Hanford folks were very respectful and agreed to look into the GAP issues further. One of the Hanford folks talked about attic dust, reminding everyone that most of the dust in the Tri-Cities comes from the southwest (Horse Heaven Hills), where there's a fair amount of naturally occurring radionuclides. The GAP report didn't identify the isotopes. They also reported "high" levels of plutonium in minnows and clams. I haven't looked at the data yet, but, that's hard to believe. I think independent oversight is good, but I wish they followed the same rules of science that everyone else would follow. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Norm Cohen Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:26 PM To: know_nukes@yahoogroups.com; radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hanford Contamination Spreads ------- Forwarded message ------- From: "Janette Sherman" To: " Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:06:44 -0400 SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/228573_hanford15.html Radioactive contamination at Hanford is on the move It is 'not just staying in place,' warns report by watchdog group Wednesday, June 15, 2005 By LISA STIFFLER SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER Radioactive dust in a Tri-Cities attic and plutonium-tainted clams in the Columbia River are red flags signaling that contamination from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation is in the environment and moving into the food chain, a watchdog group says. After finding radiation in river mud, mulberry bushes and deer and mouse scat, the Government Accountability Project says better testing is needed to determine how widespread the potentially dangerous material is and where it's going. The Seattle-based non-profit group, which is releasing its findings today, says it has measured radiation in lichen that is twice as high as previously believed. "It's not just staying in place," said Tom Carpenter, director of the group's nuclear oversight campaign. "It's getting to areas where there are people." The U.S. Department of Energy spends $2.8 million a year monitoring radiation in water, soil, plants and animals on and around the multibillion-dollar Hanford cleanup project. DOE officials and their contractors said the watchdog group's results were not surprising and that they encourage outside scrutiny. "The levels that they're dealing with really aren't out of line with what we've been dealing with for years," said Ted Poston, an environmental manager with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the company tracking environmental pollution for DOE. "The Department of Energy encourages environmental groups ... to do independent sampling and take us to task," said Dana Ward, DOE project manager for the public safety and resource-protection program. Ward and Poston said they needed more time to carefully review the report to determine its validity. Regardless, the government is protecting the public through its monitoring, Ward said. Key findings from the GAP report include finding traces of plutonium in pike minnows and clams pulled from the Columbia near Hanford, in south-central Washington. Tests are still being performed on a sturgeon recently caught offshore. Other specimens analyzed in the $50,000 study were collected last year. Contamination was also found upstream of Hanford, leading to speculation that fish could be spreading the radioactivity, though there could also be non-Hanford sources for the contamination. Land across the river from the cleanup is part of the Hanford Reach National Monument and accessible to the public. The segment of river wrapping around Hanford is renowned as part of the last free-flowing stretch of the extensively dammed river. "People are out there fishing and eating the fish," Carpenter said. If the government is finding plutonium in the pike minnow and clams, "they sure haven't reported it." It's well known that radioactive material escaped from Hanford, home of the world's first full-scale nuclear reactor and source of atomic bomb fuel. Since its creation during World War II, billions of gallons of waste were dumped into the soil and radiation released into the air. Back in the 1960s -- Hanford's heyday -- radiation from the site was measured as far as the coasts of California and Canada, said Dirk Dunning, a Hanford nuclear specialist with the Oregon Department of Energy. "Was there stuff released? Unquestionably," he said. Government officials know that radioactive groundwater is still flowing to the river tainted with radiation. It's still in the soil at the 586-square-mile reservation and has been detected in tumbleweeds that roll across the desert site. What concerns Carpenter is the presence of the radioactive and other dangerous chemicals moving from the soil and water and into plants and animals offsite that can spread the contamination, increasing the risk of exposure for people. None of the radiation detected presented an immediate risk to human health, according to the report. Even so, the results worry Tim Jarvis, a former toxicologist with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Jarvis, who reviewed the report, said the detection of radiation in the attic dust of a Richland home was "shocking." "I'm sitting here in Richland. I've got a 25-year-old home," Jarvis said. "I don't know how much radiation's in my attic." The researchers did not determine what type of radiation was in the attic, but know it's not plutonium and does not pose a risk to people living there. Dunning said that he had not studied the report. Other researchers with his department had read an earlier draft and noted in a written response concerns with its limited scope. The response stated that it "lacks scientific rigor." Carpenter and Marco Kaltofen, president of Boston Chemical Data Corp., which did the sampling for the report, agree that their research is not definitive. They want more testing done, preferably by an independent source outside of DOE or their contractor. Federal officials said they'd be willing to discuss the research with the watchdog group. A better assessment of regional contamination is essential, critics said, if the cleanup -- which could cost $60 billion and continue until 2035 -- is going to be successful. "This study says, 'We're a third party. We're citizens. And where we look, we find (radioactivity).' " Jarvis said. "So DOE, where in the hell did it go? How much, and where is it? "If DOE knows it has escaped, why isn't it out getting it?" he asked. "It's their job." P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at 206-448-8042 or lisastiffler@seattlepi.com (c) 1998-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer -- Coalition for Peace and Justice UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982 ncohen12@comcast.net; http://www.unplugsalem.org http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org "A time comes when silence is betrayal. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought, within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world." - Martin Luther King Jr. From farbersa at optonline.net Thu Jun 16 17:59:54 2005 From: farbersa at optonline.net (farbersa@optonline.net) Date: Thu Jun 16 18:00:07 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Your Nuclear Option Opinion Piece Message-ID: <45789bf457ba2d.457ba2d45789bf@optonline.net> Hello all: An interesting hyperlink to a recently published media endorsement of nuclear power based on its climatic benefits. I sent the author a brief note thanking him for his column. I believe it is important to compliment members of the media for sensible statements, not just criticize the negative press. Stewart Farber From andrewsjp at chartertn.net Thu Jun 16 19:02:53 2005 From: andrewsjp at chartertn.net (John Andrews) Date: Thu Jun 16 19:03:05 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article: EMP: America's Achilloes' Heel Message-ID: <42B1B0BD.7090501@chartertn.net> I receive Imprimis, the speech digest from Hillsdale College. The June 2005 issue has an interesting article about the effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from a nuclear weapon. See: http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/default.htm. Go to the archives if you read this after the next edition is printed. The article gives a fairly concise description of the overall effects of EMP on out national infrastructure. Made me think about what effects it would have on me and my family. (Your NukAlert will probably be fried, too!) The author, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. seems credible. Worth reading. John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee From farbersa at optonline.net Thu Jun 16 19:43:29 2005 From: farbersa at optonline.net (farbersa@optonline.net) Date: Thu Jun 16 19:43:41 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: At long last, it's 'nuclear option' time -TEXT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I've received an email, that some have had trouble viewing the hyperlink included with the email I sent to radsafe earlier. In any case, copied below is the hyperlink and a text copy of the editorial from the Oregonian. Stu Farber Consulting Scientist 1285 Wood Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 [203] 367-0791 [office] ================= http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1118915896235810.xml&coll=7 ------- Forwarded message ------- From: farbersa@optonline.net At long last, it's 'nuclear option' time Thursday, June 16, 2005 DAVID REINHARD "There is now a great deal of scientific evidence showing nuclear power to be an environmentally sound and safe choice. A doubling of nuclear energy production would make it possible to significantly reduce total [greenhouse gas] emissions nationwide. In order to create a better environmental and energy-secure future, the [United States] must once again renew its leadership in this area." OK, guess which nuclear-energy champion made the statement above. Vice President Dick Cheney or a uranium cufflinked lobbyist for the nuclear industry? OK, guess again. The pro-nukes manifesto came from Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore. The head of Greenspirit Strategies testified before Congress this past April, and he's not the only big-foot environmentalist who's rethinking nuclear power. The energy bill now before the Senate offers a chance for further reconsideration -- and action. It includes provisions that should advance nuclear power in the next decades: a new test reactor at the Idaho National Laboratory, an extension of industry-funded liability protection for nuclear facilities and incentives to jump-start construction of some advanced-design reactors. The nuclear industry can point to several advances since the last nuclear power plant came on line or the Three Mile Island fiasco decades ago. Existing plants are more efficient and cost-effective, and designs for the next generation of reactors should make them better and safer still. Never mind the justifiable federal loan guarantees in the Senate bill. Standardized construction plans and a streamlined licensing process should help make nuclear power a more attractive investment. But what's behind the welcome rethinking by some greenies? Why are they more open to going nuclear? Answer: their concern about greenhouse gases and global warming. Quite simply, nuclear energy produces none of the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide that are spewed into the atmosphere when fossil fuels are burned. It's greenhouse gas-free. Washington state's nuclear power plant, for example, kept 8,000 tons of sulfur dioxide emissions, 13,500 tons of nitrogen oxide emissions and 7.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions out of the sky in 2004. Forget global warming. Avoiding these greenhouse gases can help areas where car and industrial emissions degrade air quality. Of course, renewable energy -- wind, solar, hydroelectric -- are emission-free sources, too. But they're not equal to the magnitude of the greenhouse gas problem. They aren't now; they aren't likely to be in the future. Wind and solar are a small part of U.S. energy production and have become smaller in recent years. Hydro power now often runs afoul of efforts to protect native fish, as we know too well in the Northwest. Hydrogen is today's hot fuel of the future, but you still have to produce it, and that takes lots of electricity. This becomes a greenhouse gas problem if producing the electricity to produce the hydrogen also produces carbon dioxide. It doesn't become a greenhouse gas problem if the vast amounts of electricity used in electrolysis come from . . . nuclear power. Solar and wind power won't suffice -- unless you want to litter whole states with windmills and solar panels to produce enough hydrogen for all our cars and trucks. The Idaho National Laboratory project in the Senate bill is for research, development and construction of an advanced nuclear co-generation reactor to produce electricity and hydrogen. Plenty of prominent and garden-variety greenies still oppose nuclear energy, of course. The easing of environmental hostility to nuclear power shouldn't be overstated. When Britain's Hugh Montefiore, a longtime trustee of Friends of the Earth was ready to make a pro-nukes pronouncement ("I have now come to the conclusion that the solution [to global warming] is to make more use of nuclear energy"), his colleagues made him resign. Yet as fears about greenhouse gases and global warming grow -- and the practical problems of filling the world's energy needs with non-emission sources become ever more apparent -- today's nuclear environmentalists may come to be seen as prophets. Even if they did sound a bit like Dick Cheney or a nuclear-industry lobbyist. David Reinhard, associate editor, can be reached at 503-221-8152 or davidreinhard@news.oregonian.com. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.6/19 - Release Date: 6/16/2005 From paksbi at rit.edu Thu Jun 16 19:50:37 2005 From: paksbi at rit.edu (A Karam) Date: Thu Jun 16 19:50:46 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article: EMP: America's Achilloes' Heel Message-ID: <8C7AD67141A06D499823B280003E6C02015FAC05@svits11.main.ad.rit.edu> There is an entire chapter on EMP in Glasstone and Dolan's book, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (chapter 11). In this reference, the authors discuss where the EMP comes from and how it causes damage. The short version is that (as of 1977, when the book was written) the EMP will likely affect only objects in the line-of-sight to the weapon. For a surface burst, this might be only a few miles. At an altitude of 200 miles, the authors point out that line-of-sight includes the entire continental US. Some of you might remember the short-lived TV series Dark Angel - the show's back story was that terrorists set off a nuclear weapon and the resulting EMP damage ruined the economy and turned the US into effectively a 3rd-world country. Andy From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jun 16 19:52:59 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu Jun 16 19:53:09 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article: EMP: America's Achilloes' Heel In-Reply-To: <42B1B0BD.7090501@chartertn.net> Message-ID: <20050616175259.17607.qmail@web54308.mail.yahoo.com> Yes, if not properly grounded the NukeAlert will be shorted out. Of course, if you too close to the nuclear blast, so will you. See. http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/effects/effects11.pdf --- John Andrews wrote: > I receive Imprimis, the speech digest from Hillsdale > College. The June > 2005 issue has an interesting article about the > effects of > electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from a nuclear weapon. > See: > http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/default.htm. Go > to the archives if > you read this after the next edition is printed. > The article gives a > fairly concise description of the overall effects of > EMP on out national > infrastructure. Made me think about what effects it > would have on me and > my family. (Your NukAlert will probably be fried, > too!) The author, > Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. seems credible. Worth > reading. > > John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html From grantjoh at pacbell.net Fri Jun 17 01:41:50 2005 From: grantjoh at pacbell.net (John Grant) Date: Fri Jun 17 01:41:01 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article: EMP: America's Achilloes' Heel References: <42B1B0BD.7090501@chartertn.net> Message-ID: <42B20E3E.5050903@pacbell.net> I have a word processor made by the Linotype Company around 1939. Its electronics and memory units are not effected by EMP. John Andrews wrote: > I receive Imprimis, the speech digest from Hillsdale College. The > June 2005 issue has an interesting article about the effects of > electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from a nuclear weapon. See: > http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/default.htm. Go to the archives if > you read this after the next edition is printed. The article gives a > fairly concise description of the overall effects of EMP on out > national infrastructure. Made me think about what effects it would > have on me and my family. (Your NukAlert will probably be fried, > too!) The author, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. seems credible. Worth reading. > > John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and > understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri Jun 17 17:40:02 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri Jun 17 17:40:16 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article: EMP: America's Achilloes' Heel In-Reply-To: <42B20E3E.5050903@pacbell.net> Message-ID: <20050617154003.30126.qmail@web54304.mail.yahoo.com> Any electronic units that used vacuum tubes would not be affected by EMF. --- John Grant wrote: > I have a word processor made by the Linotype Company > around 1939. > Its electronics and memory units are not effected by > EMP. > > John Andrews wrote: > > > I receive Imprimis, the speech digest from > Hillsdale College. The > > June 2005 issue has an interesting article about > the effects of > > electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from a nuclear weapon. > See: > > http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/default.htm. Go > to the archives if > > you read this after the next edition is printed. > The article gives a > > fairly concise description of the overall effects > of EMP on out > > national infrastructure. Made me think about what > effects it would > > have on me and my family. (Your NukAlert will > probably be fried, > > too!) The author, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. seems > credible. Worth reading. > > > > John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee > > _______________________________________________ > > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe > mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to > have read and > > understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found > at: > > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe > and other settings > > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing > list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have > read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be > found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe > and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com From teraboat at prodigy.net Fri Jun 17 18:51:16 2005 From: teraboat at prodigy.net (KSmith) Date: Fri Jun 17 18:51:29 2005 Subject: Fwd: Re: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article: EMP: America's Achilloes' Heel Message-ID: <20050617165116.22207.qmail@web80201.mail.yahoo.com> --- KSmith wrote: > Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:46:48 -0700 (PDT) > From: KSmith > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article: EMP: > America's Achilloes' Heel > To: John Jacobus > > John and John, > > The NukAlert would still be working. It was tested > at > Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Div. in Patuxent > River, Maryland in May 2003 and continued to operate > after an excess of over 50kV/m was blasted at it (It > meets mil spec EMP survival requirements. Also, at > Los > Alamos it continued to function (although after a > short recovery time eg 20 minutes) after being > exposed > to 5000R/hr for two hours. Don't underestimate the > little NukAlert; alot of research and testing went > into it. > > Best Regards, > > Karl Smith > Kno-Rad, Inc. > > > > > > --- John Jacobus wrote: > > > Any electronic units that used vacuum tubes would > > not > > be affected by EMF. > > > > --- John Grant wrote: > > > > > I have a word processor made by the Linotype > > Company > > > around 1939. > > > Its electronics and memory units are not > effected > > by > > > EMP. > > > > > > John Andrews wrote: > > > > > > > I receive Imprimis, the speech digest from > > > Hillsdale College. The > > > > June 2005 issue has an interesting article > about > > > the effects of > > > > electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from a nuclear > > weapon. > > > See: > > > > http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/default.htm. > > > Go > > > to the archives if > > > > you read this after the next edition is > printed. > > > > > The article gives a > > > > fairly concise description of the overall > > effects > > > of EMP on out > > > > national infrastructure. Made me think about > > what > > > effects it would > > > > have on me and my family. (Your NukAlert will > > > probably be fried, > > > > too!) The author, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. seems > > > credible. Worth reading. > > > > > > > > John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe > > > mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > > > > > > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to > > > have read and > > > > understood the RadSafe rules. These can be > found > > > at: > > > > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > > > > > > > For information on how to subscribe or > > unsubscribe > > > and other settings > > > > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe > > mailing > > > list radsafe@radlab.nl > > > > > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to > > have > > > read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can > > be > > > found at: > > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > > > > > For information on how to subscribe or > unsubscribe > > > and other settings visit: > > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a > > new idea and never shrinks back to its original > > proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. > > > > -- John > > John Jacobus, MS > > Certified Health Physicist > > e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > > > > Yahoo! Sports > > Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy > Football > > > > http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe > mailing > > list radsafe@radlab.nl > > > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to > have > > read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can > be > > found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe > > and other settings visit: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > > > > Karl F. Smith > Kno-Rad, Inc. > PO Box 400 > Rockville, VA 23146, USA > phone: 804-749-4381 > fax: 804-749-4657 > cell: 804-512-6556 > KSmith@KnoRad.com > http://www.KnoRad.com > Karl F. Smith Kno-Rad, Inc. PO Box 400 Rockville, VA 23146, USA phone: 804-749-4381 fax: 804-749-4657 cell: 804-512-6556 KSmith@KnoRad.com http://www.KnoRad.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri Jun 17 18:54:57 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri Jun 17 18:55:08 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] News article: Air Force finds 'no evidence' of lost nuke Message-ID: <20050617165457.66078.qmail@web54305.mail.yahoo.com> >From cnn.com. The original article is at http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/17/georgia.nuke.ap/index.html -------------- Air Force finds 'no evidence' of lost nuke SAVANNAH, Georgia (AP) -- The first government search in decades for a nuclear bomb lost off the Georgia coast in 1958 failed to uncover any trace of the sunken weapon, the Air Force said in a report Friday. The report released nine months after scientists tested radiation levels in waters off Tybee Island concluded the 7,600-pound bomb cannot explode and should be left at sea. "The best course of action in this matter is to not continue to search for it and to leave the property in place," said the report by the Air Force Nuclear Weapons and Counterproliferation Agency. A damaged B-47 bomber jettisoned the Mark-15 nuke into a sound about 15 miles from Savannah in February 1958 after colliding with a fighter jet during a training flight. The military never recovered the bomb and gave up searching for 46 years until last year, when a retired Air Force pilot claimed his private search team had detected unusually high radiation levels in the sound. Government scientists investigated the claims, taking radiation readings and soil samples from a football field-sized area of water September 30. The report said varying radiation levels were observed, but they were from natural elements in the sediment on the sea floor. The Air Force has said the bomb contains an undisclosed amount of uranium and about 400 pounds of conventional explosives, though it lacks the plutonium capsule needed to trigger a nuclear blast. In a July 2001 report, the Air Force declared the bomb "irretrievably lost" and estimated it lies buried beneath 8-to-40 feet of water and 5-to-15 feet of mud and sand +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com From jerry1018 at wowway.com Fri Jun 17 20:53:03 2005 From: jerry1018 at wowway.com (Jerry Lahti) Date: Fri Jun 17 19:44:09 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FS: Space Radiation Books Message-ID: <20050617174828.M83495@wowway.com> Oldies, but still definitive treatises on radiation in space *** W.N. Hess (Ed.)Intro to Space Science, Gordon & Breach, 1965, 919pp, hardcover. Written by the staff of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center *** Second Symposium on Protection Against Radiations in Space (1964) NASA-SP-77, 551pp. Price $50 for both including shipping to the US -- Jerry Lahti Naperville IL From joel.baumbaugh at navy.mil Fri Jun 17 22:15:54 2005 From: joel.baumbaugh at navy.mil (Baumbaugh, Joel SPAWAR) Date: Fri Jun 17 22:16:04 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article: EMP: America's Achilloes' Heel Message-ID: Ok, ok.... Just one more. My "daily driver" is a 1950 Chevy Pick Up with points/condenser. Assuming I survive the initiator of a large EMP, my truck will be the only vehicle moving on San Diego freeways (as I weave between stranded motorists in their computer operated, electronic ignitioned, GPS-less, econo-boxes).... LOL Joel Baumbaugh (joel.baumbaugh@navy.mil) SSC-SD... Any electronic units that used vacuum tubes would not be affected by EMF. --- John Grant wrote: > I have a word processor made by the Linotype Company > around 1939. > Its electronics and memory units are not effected by > EMP. > > John Andrews wrote: > > > I receive Imprimis, the speech digest from > Hillsdale College. The > > June 2005 issue has an interesting article about > the effects of > > electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from a nuclear weapon. > See: > > http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/default.htm From loc at icx.net Fri Jun 17 23:58:10 2005 From: loc at icx.net (Susan Gawarecki) Date: Fri Jun 17 23:49:13 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] OT: Secret City Festival & Manhattan Project Reunion Message-ID: <42B34772.6060408@icx.net> Hi all, I ran into Ted Rockwell today at the BBQ lunch on the lawn at the K-25 site. He's down here with family for the 60th anniversary reunion of the Manhattan Project veterans. This is a fun time in Oak Ridge this weekend. A commemorative walk for the founders of Oak Ridge was dedicated this morning--this effort was spearheaded by indefatigable Manhattan Project veteran and Rotarian Bill Wilcox. Ted "Dutch" Van Kirk, navigator of the Enola Gay, is speaking several times during the events. Former Senator Bob Dole is tonight's key note speaker in Knoxville. TVA is having a big reunion also. Ed Westcott, photographer for DOE and its predecessor agencies, is receiving long-overdue honors for his lifetime of fabulous photography with no less than three exhibitions. The Children of the Manhattan Project are here in force. Last night the first half of a 6-part documentary on the history of Oak Ridge premiered--when this gets to the History Channel, you will be awed! Perhaps best of all the Beta 3 Calutrons will be opened up for public tours on Saturday. How NNSA was talked into that, I'll never know. These tours are sold out, with over 600 people signed up. And much, much more.... It's nice to see the effort that created the atomic age finally getting some long-deserved positive attention. Susan From eximcon at mail.ru Sat Jun 18 02:23:15 2005 From: eximcon at mail.ru (eximcon@mail.ru) Date: Sat Jun 18 02:23:37 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Mailing List Message-ID: <00aa01c5739b$f2240860$641ce0dc@eximcons> e-mail : eximcon@mail.ru eximcon@gmail.com Phone : 91-171-2699280, FAX : 91-171-2699780, EXPORT IMPORT CONSORTIUM 38, Azad Nagar, Jagadhri Road, AMBALA CANTT 133006 (India) . JUNE 17 2005. Dear Sirs : From EuroPages we find you are dealing in educational scientific laboratory materials, as manufacturers we can offer good quality and competitive rates for Spectrum Analysis Tubes, Crooke's Radiometers, Glass Hydrometers, Scientific Laboratory Borosilicate Glassware like beakers, flasks, cylinders, Condensers, etc and invite your valued enquiries and orders for your current, and all future requirements. If you have any requirement from India, send detailed enquiries, may be, some one of our Consortium members is able to make a competitive offer. SurajParkash From hflong at pacbell.net Sun Jun 19 03:09:52 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Sun Jun 19 03:10:03 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] EMP: America's Achilles' Heel not NukAlert In-Reply-To: <20050616175259.17607.qmail@web54308.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050619010952.3125.qmail@web81803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Wrong. NukAlert withstands great EMP (Question info@NukAlert.com). John's ref is from 1977. One author contends that probability of nuclear explosion in USA is much more than the 1% + I suggested - enough for HPs to wear NukAlert. "Does Osama bin Laden have nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction? If so, where are they? Are they in the hands of al Qaeda sleeper cells in the United States? Should Americans be bracing for a nuclear attack? Former consultant for the FBI an organized crime and international terrorism and a seasoned investigative reporter, Paul L. Williams reveals the potential for nuclear terrorism on US soil in this shocking expose. Based on the findings of US, Israeli, Pakistani, and British intelligence, Williams describes how the theft of tactical nuclear weapons from Russian arsenals have in all likelihood made their way to al Qaeda cells throughout the United States in preparation for the next terrorist attack. Williams presents clear evidence showing that, in the chaos following the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Chechen Mafia got its hands on portable Russian nuclear weapons. Between 1996 and 2001, mafia members negotiated the sale of twenty nuclear "suitcase bombs" to representatives of Osama bin Laden. Far worse than so-called "dirty bombs," each suitcase bomb is capable of killing millions of Americans while exposing millions more to deadly radioactive fallout. According to Williams, reliable sources indicate that these bombs may already be in the possession of al Qaeda operatives in such major cities as New York, Washington, Miami, Chicago, Las Vegas, Houston, and Los Angeles. In addition, bin Laden has recruited former Soviet scientists and technicians to maintain these weapons and recharge their nuclear cores so that they may be deployed immediately on his command. In 2001 he issued a statement boasting of his intent to have America experience a "Hiroshima." Also included in the book are bin Laden's "Letters to America" and his "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," as well as the World Islamic Statement declaring "Jihad against Jews and Crusaders." These crucial documents highlight the rationale behind and the depth of bin Laden's hatred for the United States. Moreover, Williams documents that Osama has the international network of embedded terrorists to carry out his threats. Although the media have reported on some of these threatening developments and government insiders have acknowledged the threat of nuclear attack, until now no one has put all the pieces together in a coherent, no nonsense way. Williams makes a persuasive case that bin Laden and his deputies have the motive and the means and are just waiting for the opportunity to launch an apocalyptic attack on the "Great Satan" of America. " I don't find the name of Paul Williams book. It seems all too credible. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Yes, if not properly grounded the NukeAlert will be shorted out. Of course, if you too close to the nuclear blast, so will you. See. http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/effects/effects11.pdf --- John Andrews wrote: > I receive Imprimis, the speech digest from Hillsdale > College. The June > 2005 issue has an interesting article about the > effects of > electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from a nuclear weapon. > See: > http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/default.htm. Go > to the archives if > you read this after the next edition is printed. > The article gives a > fairly concise description of the overall effects of > EMP on out national > infrastructure. Made me think about what effects it > would have on me and > my family. (Your NukAlert will probably be fried, > too!) The author, > Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. seems credible. Worth > reading. > > John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee From rennhack at hotmail.com Sat Jun 18 22:34:18 2005 From: rennhack at hotmail.com (Michael Rennhack) Date: Sun Jun 19 14:49:33 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Inshurance for Nuclear Workers Message-ID: Greetings RadSafers, I have been approached by MANY people, suggesting that I offer group insurance for nuclear workers. In recent months, the request has come more frequently from more sources. I believe that we can work out a deal where all nuclear workers can get a group rate as NukeWorker members. This rate should be better than what most companies can offer. In fact, I'm proposing that while you are working, your company take the money they would normally pay towards your insurance, and send it to us to cover your plan (pre tax). Then, when you get laid off, you won't have to worry about cobra, and setting up new insurance. And you won't have to worry about the different plans from different companies. I'll get some rates for different levels of coverage as well. Some people only want major medical with a large deductible; others want full coverage with a small deductible. We will offer several options. What does everyone think? I know less than nothing about insurance, but I am willing to make this happen, to help everyone out. How many people are interested in this? Please visit this link and give us your thoughts: http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php?topic=5697 From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jun 19 16:53:27 2005 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Sun Jun 19 16:53:40 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Inshurance for Nuclear Workers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050619145327.54564.qmail@web26410.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear Radsafers, Michael Rennhack's suggestion of introducing special insurance for workers in nuclear industry implies that the profession carries extra risk.Work in nuclear industry is no riskier than that in any other profession.It is safer than any other industry. Nuclear workers are less exposed occupationally than others. The radiation dose generally is of the order of a few mSv. Occupational exposures to nuclear workers are thus well within the limits prescribed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). All countries have accepted the concept that radiation workers should not be extended any special privilege, extra compensation, insurance, special leave etc. The IAEA, ILO, WHO, PAHO, NEA/OECD sponsored International Basic Safety Standards for Protection agaist Ionizing Radiation and the Safety of Radiation Sources clearly enunciates this principle. Let me hasten to add that in India, radiation workers in medical diagnostic x-ray installations in many State owned hospitals are given privileges such as an extra month of paid leave; the privilege is not available to radiation workers in the hospitals owned by the Central Government.Special insurance was not extended to radiation workers in either State owned or Central hospitals .The privileges were given to radiation workers in State Governements based on practices existed in 1930s!. I understand it started with radiation workers who handled radium and later extended to other radiation workers. I believe that those who advocate special insurance to workers in nuclear industry knows next to nothing about the safety status of this well organised industry. Radiation safety professionals should not support any move to extend special privileges to workers in nuclear industry. Obviously extending privileges and special compensation must not be a substitute for appropriate radiological protection measures. I was told that many years ago, some managements owning radiation installations in India used to give special nurishment containing extra proteins and milk to radiation workers to ensure that the "damage" to their health due to radiation exposure is repaired promptly! Workers then used to believe in the myth! Provision of extra nourishment was probably an ideal method to keep excellent industrial relations! My two cent worth contribution K.S.Parthasarathy Michael Rennhack wrote: Greetings RadSafers, I have been approached by MANY people, suggesting that I offer group insurance for nuclear workers. In recent months, the request has come more frequently from more sources. I believe that we can work out a deal where all nuclear workers can get a group rate as NukeWorker members. This rate should be better than what most companies can offer. In fact, I'm proposing that while you are working, your company take the money they would normally pay towards your insurance, and send it to us to cover your plan (pre tax). Then, when you get laid off, you won't have to worry about cobra, and setting up new insurance. And you won't have to worry about the different plans from different companies. I'll get some rates for different levels of coverage as well. Some people only want major medical with a large deductible; others want full coverage with a small deductible. We will offer several options. What does everyone think? I know less than nothing about insurance, but I am willing to make this happen, to help everyone out. How many people are interested in this? Please visit this link and give us your thoughts: http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php?topic=5697 _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ --------------------------------- How much mail storage do you get for free? Yahoo! Mail gives you 1GB! Get Yahoo! Mail From Villicana at aol.com Sun Jun 19 17:27:57 2005 From: Villicana at aol.com (Villicana) Date: Sun Jun 19 17:28:01 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Inshurance for Nuclear Workers In-Reply-To: <20050619145327.54564.qmail@web26410.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20050619145327.54564.qmail@web26410.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42B58EFD.8020209@aol.com> I think you missed the point. What he is trying to say that he would become a provider or conduit of medical health insurance for the contract worker. Just like a contract company does when you are employed by them. Nothing new or special for radiation workers, just good old medical health care for the year and at a reasonable cost. David parthasarathy k s wrote on 6/19/2005, 9:53 AM: > Dear Radsafers, > > Michael Rennhack's suggestion of introducing special insurance for > workers in nuclear industry implies that the profession carries extra > risk.Work in nuclear industry is no riskier than that in any other > profession.It is safer than any other industry. Nuclear workers are > less exposed occupationally than others. The radiation dose generally > is of the order of a few mSv. Occupational exposures to nuclear > workers are thus well within the limits prescribed by the > International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). > > All countries have accepted the concept that radiation workers should > not be extended any special privilege, extra compensation, insurance, > special leave etc. The IAEA, ILO, WHO, PAHO, NEA/OECD sponsored > International Basic Safety Standards for Protection agaist Ionizing > Radiation and the Safety of Radiation Sources clearly enunciates this > principle. > > Let me hasten to add that in India, radiation workers in medical > diagnostic x-ray installations in many State owned hospitals are given > privileges such as an extra month of paid leave; the privilege is not > available to radiation workers in the hospitals owned by the Central > Government.Special insurance was not extended to radiation workers in > either State owned or Central hospitals > > .The privileges were given to radiation workers in State Governements > based on practices existed in 1930s!. I understand it started with > radiation workers who handled radium and later extended to other > radiation workers. > > I believe that those who advocate special insurance to workers in > nuclear industry knows next to nothing about the safety status of this > well organised industry. Radiation safety professionals should not > support any move to extend special privileges to workers in nuclear > industry. Obviously extending privileges and special compensation must > not be a substitute for appropriate radiological protection measures. > > I was told that many years ago, some managements owning radiation > installations in India used to give special nurishment containing > extra proteins and milk to radiation workers to ensure that the > "damage" to their health due to radiation exposure is repaired > promptly! Workers then used to believe in the myth! Provision of extra > nourishment was probably an ideal method to keep excellent industrial > relations! > > My two cent worth contribution > > K.S.Parthasarathy > > > > > Michael Rennhack wrote: > Greetings RadSafers, > > I have been approached by MANY people, suggesting that I offer group > insurance for nuclear workers. In recent months, the request has come > more > frequently from more sources. I believe that we can work out a deal where > all nuclear workers can get a group rate as NukeWorker members. This rate > should be better than what most companies can offer. In fact, I'm > proposing > that while you are working, your company take the money they would > normally > pay towards your insurance, and send it to us to cover your plan (pre > tax). > Then, when you get laid off, you won't have to worry about cobra, and > setting up new insurance. And you won't have to worry about the different > plans from different companies. > > I'll get some rates for different levels of coverage as well. Some people > only want major medical with a large deductible; others want full > coverage > with a small deductible. We will offer several options. > > What does everyone think? I know less than nothing about insurance, but I > am willing to make this happen, to help everyone out. How many people are > interested in this? > > Please visit this link and give us your thoughts: > > http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php?topic=5697 > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list > radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and > understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > > --------------------------------- > How much mail storage do you get for free? Yahoo! Mail gives you 1GB! > Get Yahoo! Mail > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list > radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and > understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > -- David Villicana PMP email: Villicana@aol.com Cell 573-808-2198 From cobdw at tds.net Sun Jun 19 18:37:38 2005 From: cobdw at tds.net (cobdw@tds.net) Date: Sun Jun 19 18:37:49 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Inshurance for Nuclear Workers Message-ID: <200506191637.j5JGbcb9007343@outbound1.mail.tds.net> Mike, I think it is a great Idea and I would jump at the chance to improve the quality of care for my family and myself. I would suggest that you start by collecting information from the the group as to what they are currently paying for coverage, copays, deductibles, prescription copay, level of coverage ie(80/20, 50/50, 100% after deductible is met, PPO percentage, in or out of net work, would dental and vision be included, etc). I would seriously look in to blue cross and blue shield or aetna. When I had them for insurance in the past, I was happy and they should have a nationwide plan. (need to have folks get you there coverage info so you can compare or have the ins. rep. compare and beat.) D. Coble PS If this comes through I will become a gold member just for this bene. > > From: "Michael Rennhack" > Date: 2005/06/18 Sat PM 08:34:18 GMT > To: radsafe@radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Inshurance for Nuclear Workers > > Greetings RadSafers, > > I have been approached by MANY people, suggesting that I offer group > insurance for nuclear workers. In recent months, the request has come more > frequently from more sources. I believe that we can work out a deal where > all nuclear workers can get a group rate as NukeWorker members. This rate > should be better than what most companies can offer. In fact, I'm proposing > that while you are working, your company take the money they would normally > pay towards your insurance, and send it to us to cover your plan (pre tax). > Then, when you get laid off, you won't have to worry about cobra, and > setting up new insurance. And you won't have to worry about the different > plans from different companies. > > I'll get some rates for different levels of coverage as well. Some people > only want major medical with a large deductible; others want full coverage > with a small deductible. We will offer several options. > > What does everyone think? I know less than nothing about insurance, but I > am willing to make this happen, to help everyone out. How many people are > interested in this? > > Please visit this link and give us your thoughts: > > http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php?topic=5697 > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From cobdw at tds.net Sun Jun 19 18:37:45 2005 From: cobdw at tds.net (cobdw@tds.net) Date: Sun Jun 19 18:41:41 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Inshurance for Nuclear Workers Message-ID: <200506191637.j5JGbjgW013095@outbound3.mail.tds.net> Mike, I think it is a great Idea and I would jump at the chance to improve the quality of care for my family and myself. I would suggest that you start by collecting information from the the group as to what they are currently paying for coverage, copays, deductibles, prescription copay, level of coverage ie(80/20, 50/50, 100% after deductible is met, PPO percentage, in or out of net work, would dental and vision be included, etc). I would seriously look in to blue cross and blue shield or aetna. When I had them for insurance in the past, I was happy and they should have a nationwide plan. (need to have folks get you there coverage info so you can compare or have the ins. rep. compare and beat.) D. Coble PS If this comes through I will become a gold member just for this bene. > > From: "Michael Rennhack" > Date: 2005/06/18 Sat PM 08:34:18 GMT > To: radsafe@radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Inshurance for Nuclear Workers > > Greetings RadSafers, > > I have been approached by MANY people, suggesting that I offer group > insurance for nuclear workers. In recent months, the request has come more > frequently from more sources. I believe that we can work out a deal where > all nuclear workers can get a group rate as NukeWorker members. This rate > should be better than what most companies can offer. In fact, I'm proposing > that while you are working, your company take the money they would normally > pay towards your insurance, and send it to us to cover your plan (pre tax). > Then, when you get laid off, you won't have to worry about cobra, and > setting up new insurance. And you won't have to worry about the different > plans from different companies. > > I'll get some rates for different levels of coverage as well. Some people > only want major medical with a large deductible; others want full coverage > with a small deductible. We will offer several options. > > What does everyone think? I know less than nothing about insurance, but I > am willing to make this happen, to help everyone out. How many people are > interested in this? > > Please visit this link and give us your thoughts: > > http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php?topic=5697 > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From radcontrol at earthlink.net Sun Jun 19 19:17:49 2005 From: radcontrol at earthlink.net (Walter Cofer) Date: Sun Jun 19 19:18:07 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Inshurance for Nuclear Workers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm covered under my wife's health insurance policy, but if NukeWorker could offer professional liability insurance under a group discount, I'd be interested in that. As a radiation safety consultant, insurers run away from me as if I was glowing (which I hardly ever do); their rates are far above the risk associated with my work. In hindsight, I probably should have come up with a business name that didn't include "radiation" in it. BTW, I really wanted the business name to be "Industrial Radiation Safety" but more than a few of my colleagues suggested that it might be detrimental to my business if I called folks and told them I was from "IRS." Walt Cofer Radiation Control, Inc. Tallahassee, FL Radcontrol@earthlink.net -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Michael Rennhack Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 4:34 PM To: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Inshurance for Nuclear Workers Greetings RadSafers, I have been approached by MANY people, suggesting that I offer group insurance for nuclear workers. In recent months, the request has come more frequently from more sources. I believe that we can work out a deal where all nuclear workers can get a group rate as NukeWorker members. This rate should be better than what most companies can offer. In fact, I'm proposing that while you are working, your company take the money they would normally pay towards your insurance, and send it to us to cover your plan (pre tax). Then, when you get laid off, you won't have to worry about cobra, and setting up new insurance. And you won't have to worry about the different plans from different companies. I'll get some rates for different levels of coverage as well. Some people only want major medical with a large deductible; others want full coverage with a small deductible. We will offer several options. What does everyone think? I know less than nothing about insurance, but I am willing to make this happen, to help everyone out. How many people are interested in this? Please visit this link and give us your thoughts: http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php?topic=5697 _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From hflong at pacbell.net Sun Jun 19 19:35:30 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Sun Jun 19 19:35:44 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Insurance for Nuclear Workers In-Reply-To: <200506191637.j5JGbjgW013095@outbound3.mail.tds.net> Message-ID: <20050619173530.46440.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Health Savings Accounts insure better, thriftier care. See HSA Road Rules for Consumers, Employers, Banks, Credit Unions and Administrators. www.hsainsider.com/HSA%20Road%20Rules%20Dec%207th.pdf also www.Galen.org and www.AAPSonline.org Basically, you get half the premium, tax deductible, for choosing your own care up to $2,000+ deductible catastrophic insurance. Patient Power, published by Libertarian Cato Inst, shows studies of its effect (av $1,000+/yr more in your pocket with better care). Better safety: 30% lower catastrophic cost after vs before (presumably from fewer catastrophies).. Promote cross-state insurance, so you have to pay for smokers and other risk takers. Howard Long MD Family Doctor cobdw@tds.net wrote: Mike, I think it is a great Idea and I would jump at the chance to improve the quality of care for my family and myself. I would suggest that you start by collecting information from the the group as to what they are currently paying for coverage, copays, deductibles, prescription copay, level of coverage ie(80/20, 50/50, 100% after deductible is met, PPO percentage, in or out of net work, would dental and vision be included, etc). I would seriously look in to blue cross and blue shield or aetna. When I had them for insurance in the past, I was happy and they should have a nationwide plan. (need to have folks get you there coverage info so you can compare or have the ins. rep. compare and beat.) D. Coble PS If this comes through I will become a gold member just for this bene. > > From: "Michael Rennhack" > Date: 2005/06/18 Sat PM 08:34:18 GMT > To: radsafe@radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Inshurance for Nuclear Workers > > Greetings RadSafers, > > I have been approached by MANY people, suggesting that I offer group > insurance for nuclear workers. In recent months, the request has come more > frequently from more sources. I believe that we can work out a deal where > all nuclear workers can get a group rate as NukeWorker members. This rate > should be better than what most companies can offer. In fact, I'm proposing > that while you are working, your company take the money they would normally > pay towards your insurance, and send it to us to cover your plan (pre tax). > Then, when you get laid off, you won't have to worry about cobra, and > setting up new insurance. And you won't have to worry about the different > plans from different companies. > > I'll get some rates for different levels of coverage as well. Some people > only want major medical with a large deductible; others want full coverage > with a small deductible. We will offer several options. > > What does everyone think? I know less than nothing about insurance, but I > am willing to make this happen, to help everyone out. How many people are > interested in this? > > Please visit this link and give us your thoughts: From hflong at pacbell.net Sun Jun 19 19:57:43 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Sun Jun 19 19:57:56 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Insurance for Nuclear Workers "- DO NOT have to pay for smokers-" In-Reply-To: <20050619173530.46440.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050619175743.49298.qmail@web81805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Correction- - sorry I missed the " do not -" in the last sentence. HL howard long wrote:Health Savings Accounts insure better, thriftier care. See HSA Road Rules for Consumers, Employers, Banks, Credit Unions and Administrators. www.hsainsider.com/HSA%20Road%20Rules%20Dec%207th.pdf also www.Galen.org and www.AAPSonline.org Basically, you get half the premium, tax deductible, for choosing your own care up to $2,000+ deductible catastrophic insurance. Patient Power, published by Libertarian Cato Inst, shows studies of its effect (av $1,000+/yr more in your pocket with better care). Better safety: 30% lower catastrophic cost after vs before (presumably from fewer catastrophies).. Promote cross-state insurance, so you [ DO NOT] have to pay for smokers and other risk takers. Howard Long MD Family Doctor cobdw@tds.net wrote: Mike, I think it is a great Idea and I would jump at the chance to improve the quality of care for my family and myself. I would suggest that you start by collecting information from the the group as to what they are currently paying for coverage, copays, deductibles, prescription copay, level of coverage ie(80/20, 50/50, 100% after deductible is met, PPO percentage, in or out of net work, would dental and vision be included, etc). I would seriously look in to blue cross and blue shield or aetna. When I had them for insurance in the past, I was happy and they should have a nationwide plan. (need to have folks get you there coverage info so you can compare or have the ins. rep. compare and beat.) D. Coble PS If this comes through I will become a gold member just for this bene. > > From: "Michael Rennhack" > Date: 2005/06/18 Sat PM 08:34:18 GMT > To: radsafe@radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Inshurance for Nuclear Workers > > Greetings RadSafers, > > I have been approached by MANY people, suggesting that I offer group > insurance for nuclear workers. In recent months, the request has come more > frequently from more sources. I believe that we can work out a deal where > all nuclear workers can get a group rate as NukeWorker members. This rate > should be better than what most companies can offer. In fact, I'm proposing > that while you are working, your company take the money they would normally > pay towards your insurance, and send it to us to cover your plan (pre tax). > Then, when you get laid off, you won't have to worry about cobra, and > setting up new insurance. And you won't have to worry about the different > plans from different companies. > > I'll get some rates for different levels of coverage as well. Some people > only want major medical with a large deductible; others want full coverage > with a small deductible. We will offer several options. > > What does everyone think? I know less than nothing about insurance, but I > am willing to make this happen, to help everyone out. How many people are > interested in this? > > Please visit this link and give us your thoughts: _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From Bigchuk107 at aol.com Mon Jun 20 04:52:07 2005 From: Bigchuk107 at aol.com (Bigchuk107@aol.com) Date: Mon Jun 20 09:44:25 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiological Emergency Response Training Message-ID: <1f4.c06765f.2fe78957@aol.com> Please send me a CD-Rom of the manual Radiological Emergency Response Training and any other online or hard cover training materials you feel would be appropriate for me. I am a student at Delaware Technical and Community College with a dual major-criminal justice and emergency services management. I am also taking online courses through Fema, the CDC, Homeland Security, and the Office of Domestic Preparedness. Anything that feel would benefit my education toward a doctoral degree in forensic psychology and terrorism would be helpful. I thank you for your speedy response. Respectfully, Charles R. Sweitzer 107 Seabright Way Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971 Bigchuk107@aol.com cell 302-258-4640 From rennhack at hotmail.com Sun Jun 19 22:09:21 2005 From: rennhack at hotmail.com (Michael Rennhack) Date: Mon Jun 20 09:44:42 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Inshurance for Nuclear Workers In-Reply-To: <20050619145327.54564.qmail@web26410.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: It's not 'special' insurance because we are nuclear workers. It is insurance for people that don't have it. Obviously you are not one of the thousands that are lacking insurance in this industry. Good for you. Perhaps next time you should read the messages a little closer. ----Original Message Follows---- From: parthasarathy k s To: Michael Rennhack , radsafe@radlab.nl, ksparth@yahoo.co.uk Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Inshurance for Nuclear Workers Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 15:53:27 +0100 (BST) Dear Radsafers, Michael Rennhack's suggestion of introducing special insurance for workers in nuclear industry implies that the profession carries extra risk.Work in nuclear industry is no riskier than that in any other profession.It is safer than any other industry. Nuclear workers are less exposed occupationally than others. The radiation dose generally is of the order of a few mSv. Occupational exposures to nuclear workers are thus well within the limits prescribed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). All countries have accepted the concept that radiation workers should not be extended any special privilege, extra compensation, insurance, special leave etc. The IAEA, ILO, WHO, PAHO, NEA/OECD sponsored International Basic Safety Standards for Protection agaist Ionizing Radiation and the Safety of Radiation Sources clearly enunciates this principle. Let me hasten to add that in India, radiation workers in medical diagnostic x-ray installations in many State owned hospitals are given privileges such as an extra month of paid leave; the privilege is not available to radiation workers in the hospitals owned by the Central Government.Special insurance was not extended to radiation workers in either State owned or Central hospitals .The privileges were given to radiation workers in State Governements based on practices existed in 1930s!. I understand it started with radiation workers who handled radium and later extended to other radiation workers. I believe that those who advocate special insurance to workers in nuclear industry knows next to nothing about the safety status of this well organised industry. Radiation safety professionals should not support any move to extend special privileges to workers in nuclear industry. Obviously extending privileges and special compensation must not be a substitute for appropriate radiological protection measures. I was told that many years ago, some managements owning radiation installations in India used to give special nurishment containing extra proteins and milk to radiation workers to ensure that the "damage" to their health due to radiation exposure is repaired promptly! Workers then used to believe in the myth! Provision of extra nourishment was probably an ideal method to keep excellent industrial relations! My two cent worth contribution K.S.Parthasarathy Michael Rennhack wrote: Greetings RadSafers, I have been approached by MANY people, suggesting that I offer group insurance for nuclear workers. In recent months, the request has come more frequently from more sources. I believe that we can work out a deal where all nuclear workers can get a group rate as NukeWorker members. This rate should be better than what most companies can offer. In fact, I'm proposing that while you are working, your company take the money they would normally pay towards your insurance, and send it to us to cover your plan (pre tax). Then, when you get laid off, you won't have to worry about cobra, and setting up new insurance. And you won't have to worry about the different plans from different companies. I'll get some rates for different levels of coverage as well. Some people only want major medical with a large deductible; others want full coverage with a small deductible. We will offer several options. What does everyone think? I know less than nothing about insurance, but I am willing to make this happen, to help everyone out. How many people are interested in this? Please visit this link and give us your thoughts: http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php?topic=5697 _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ --------------------------------- How much mail storage do you get for free? Yahoo! Mail gives you 1GB! Get Yahoo! Mail From radmax at earthlink.net Mon Jun 20 12:48:09 2005 From: radmax at earthlink.net (Richard Urban Jr) Date: Mon Jun 20 12:48:49 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Insurance for Nuclear Workers References: <20050619145327.54564.qmail@web26410.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004301c57585$90a4b260$6801a8c0@Laptop> FYI, if you have not been informed yet... Mike Rennhack runs a website that is primarily devoted to U.S. Commercial Nuclear POWER PLANT workers, and/or contract workers elsewhere involved with radiological subjects, such as cleanups or U.S. Dept of Energy (A-bombs) sites, very little is addressed to nuclear medicine other than job listings... www.nukeworker.com. If you were to visit his site, you would see many posts regarding insurance coverage. Here in the United States, as a contract worker going from one refueling outage to the next, from one company to the next, and having long durations of unemployment, our various employers do NOT extend healthcare insurance during unemployment, nor does it transfer easily from one company to another (and the rates and coverage are not that great to begin with). Additionally, there are usually 'miniumum length of service' requirements with each company BEFORE you are covered (hard to reach when outages are only 4-8 weeks), and family coverage is an additional cost as well. The Consolidated Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) was mentioned in one of the postings, this was an act of US Congress to enable temporary continuation of insurance benefits between jobs, but the rates are quite high considering most of us are not earning a paycheck (or not as big a paycheck) between contracts. What Mike is attempting to offer is a SINGLE insurer, with unchanging rates, that we migrant nuclear workers here in the America's can take advantage of, instead of having to constantly change insurers, coverages, options, etc... NOT additional coverage JUST because we work with radiation. Good on ya Mike, keep it up!! Richard Urban (Thankfully covered under my wife's insurance) Yuma, AZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "parthasarathy k s" To: "Michael Rennhack" ; ; Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Inshurance for Nuclear Workers > Dear Radsafers, > > Michael Rennhack's suggestion of introducing special insurance for workers > in nuclear industry implies that the profession carries extra risk.Work in > nuclear industry is no riskier than that in any other profession.It is > safer than any other industry. Nuclear workers are less exposed > occupationally than others. The radiation dose generally is of the order > of a few mSv. Occupational exposures to nuclear workers are thus well > within the limits prescribed by the International Commission on > Radiological Protection (ICRP). > From filljoh at auburn.edu Mon Jun 20 17:06:20 2005 From: filljoh at auburn.edu (John Fill) Date: Mon Jun 20 17:06:34 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Assistant RSO position at Auburn University Message-ID: SAFETY AND HEALTH SPECIALIST (Radiation Safety Specialist) The Department of Risk Management and Safety of Auburn University is seeking candidates for the position of Safety and Health Specialist (Radiation Safety Specialist). Responsibilities include but are not limited to: provide support to the Radiation Safety Program; assist in the development and implementation of programs and procedures; perform inspections to monitor compliance with regulations; perform training; and manage radioactive materials inventory and waste. The minimum requirements are a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university in Health Physics, Environmental Science, Health and Safety, Industrial Hygiene, Biological Sciences, Engineering or Chemistry with no experience or a Bachelor's degree in any other discipline plus two years experience in a related field. Desired qualifications include: education or experience specific to radiation safety, comprehensive knowledge of state and federal regulations relating to radiation safety, and prior work experience in a university or research setting. Minorities and women are encouraged to apply. Refer to Requisition # 21152 and apply on-line at: www.auemployment.com on any computer with internet access. If you need any assistance, contact Auburn University's Department of Human Resources at (334) 844-4145. Internet access is also available through your local state employment service office and public library. Review of applications will begin after July 13, 2005 Auburn University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon Jun 20 18:42:53 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon Jun 20 18:43:04 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: EMP: America's Achilles' Heel not NukAlert In-Reply-To: <20050619010952.3125.qmail@web81803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050620164254.92587.qmail@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Again, you did not understand my comments. I was referring to the effects of an electro-magnetic pulses following a nuclear explosion. The pulse would affect all unprotected electrons. If the NukeAlert is properly grounded, then it will not be affected. As an HP I would not bother with a NukeAlert. While it could detect an increase in radiation levels, it tells nothing about the source, which could be from fallout or a stationary source moving toward you. It the increase is due to fallout, you do not know the direction it is coming from, so you will not know how to get out of the plume. My guess is that Paul Willliams might work for NukeAlert and is hoping to increase sales to those afraid of radiation. As an HP, I would not get one. I do not know of any HPs who have them. --- howard long wrote: > Wrong. NukAlert withstands great EMP (Question > info@NukAlert.com). > John's ref is from 1977. > > One author contends that probability of nuclear > explosion in USA > is much more than the 1% + I suggested - enough for > HPs to wear NukAlert. > > "Does Osama bin Laden have nuclear weapons and other > weapons of mass destruction? If so, where are they? > Are they in the hands of al Qaeda sleeper cells in > the United States? Should Americans be bracing for a > nuclear attack? > > Former consultant for the FBI an organized crime and > international terrorism and a seasoned investigative > reporter, Paul L. Williams reveals the potential for > nuclear terrorism on US soil in this shocking > expose. Based on the findings of US, Israeli, > Pakistani, and British intelligence, Williams > describes how the theft of tactical nuclear weapons > from Russian arsenals have in all likelihood made > their way to al Qaeda cells throughout the United > States in preparation for the next terrorist attack. > > > Williams presents clear evidence showing that, in > the chaos following the breakup of the Soviet Union, > the Chechen Mafia got its hands on portable Russian > nuclear weapons. Between 1996 and 2001, mafia > members negotiated the sale of twenty nuclear > "suitcase bombs" to representatives of Osama bin > Laden. Far worse than so-called "dirty bombs," each > suitcase bomb is capable of killing millions of > Americans while exposing millions more to deadly > radioactive fallout. According to Williams, reliable > sources indicate that these bombs may already be in > the possession of al Qaeda operatives in such major > cities as New York, Washington, Miami, Chicago, Las > Vegas, Houston, and Los Angeles. In addition, bin > Laden has recruited former Soviet scientists and > technicians to maintain these weapons and recharge > their nuclear cores so that they may be deployed > immediately on his command. In 2001 he issued a > statement boasting of his intent to have America > experience a "Hiroshima." > > Also included in the book are bin Laden's "Letters > to America" and his "Declaration of War against the > Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy > Places," as well as the World Islamic Statement > declaring "Jihad against Jews and Crusaders." These > crucial documents highlight the rationale behind and > the depth of bin Laden's hatred for the United > States. Moreover, Williams documents that Osama has > the international network of embedded terrorists to > carry out his threats. > > Although the media have reported on some of these > threatening developments and government insiders > have acknowledged the threat of nuclear attack, > until now no one has put all the pieces together in > a coherent, no nonsense way. Williams makes a > persuasive case that bin Laden and his deputies have > the motive and the means and are just waiting for > the opportunity to launch an apocalyptic attack on > the "Great Satan" of America. " > > I don't find the name of Paul Williams book. It > seems all too credible. Howard Long > John Jacobus wrote: > Yes, if not properly grounded the NukeAlert will be > shorted out. Of course, if you too close to the > nuclear blast, so will you. See. > http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/effects/effects11.pdf > > --- John Andrews wrote: > > > I receive Imprimis, the speech digest from > Hillsdale > > College. The June > > 2005 issue has an interesting article about the > > effects of > > electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from a nuclear weapon. > > > See: > > http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/default.htm. Go > > to the archives if > > you read this after the next edition is printed. > > The article gives a > > fairly concise description of the overall effects > of > > EMP on out national > > infrastructure. Made me think about what effects > it > > would have on me and > > my family. (Your NukAlert will probably be fried, > > too!) The author, > > Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. seems credible. Worth > > reading. > > > > John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hflong at pacbell.net Mon Jun 20 20:00:56 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Mon Jun 20 20:01:07 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPs Useless without NukAlert in Nuc Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050620164254.92587.qmail@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050620180056.46465.qmail@web81803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> HPs must choose between Jacobus (below) and education like Project NukAlert. Both views are elaborated below. Any similar product is welcomed " -to educate society for preservation of life and mitigation of pai and suffering in antype of disaster" the mission of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. Howard Long. John Jacobus wrote: Again, you did not understand my comments. I was referring to the effects of an electro-magnetic pulses following a nuclear explosion. The pulse would affect all unprotected electrons. If the NukeAlert is properly grounded, then it will not be affected. As an HP I would not bother with a NukeAlert. While it could detect an increase in radiation levels, it tells nothing about the source, which could be from fallout or a stationary source moving toward you. It the increase is due to fallout, you do not know the direction it is coming from, so you will not know how to get out of the plume. My guess is that Paul Willliams might work for NukeAlert and is hoping to increase sales to those afraid of radiation. As an HP, I would not get one. I do not know of any HPs who have them. --- howard long wrote: > Wrong. NukAlert withstands great EMP (info@NukAlert.com). > John's ref is from 1977. > > "Does Osama bin Laden have nuclear weapons and other > weapons of mass destruction? If so, where are they? > Are they in the hands of al Qaeda sleeper cells in > the United States? Should Americans be bracing for a > nuclear attack? > > Former consultant for the FBI an organized crime and > international terrorism and a seasoned investigative > reporter, Paul L. Williams reveals the potential for > nuclear terrorism on US soil in this shocking > expose. Based on the findings of US, Israeli, > Pakistani, and British intelligence, Williams > describes how the theft of tactical nuclear weapons > from Russian arsenals have in all likelihood made > their way to al Qaeda cells throughout the United > States in preparation for the next terrorist attack. > > > Williams presents clear evidence showing that, in > the chaos following the breakup of the Soviet Union, > the Chechen Mafia got its hands on portable Russian > nuclear weapons. Between 1996 and 2001, mafia > members negotiated the sale of twenty nuclear > "suitcase bombs" to representatives of Osama bin > Laden. Far worse than so-called "dirty bombs," each > suitcase bomb is capable of killing millions of > Americans while exposing millions more to deadly > radioactive fallout. According to Williams, reliable > sources indicate that these bombs may already be in > the possession of al Qaeda operatives in such major > cities as New York, Washington, Miami, Chicago, Las > Vegas, Houston, and Los Angeles. In addition, bin > Laden has recruited former Soviet scientists and > technicians to maintain these weapons and recharge > their nuclear cores so that they may be deployed > immediately on his command. In 2001 he issued a > statement boasting of his intent to have America > experience a "Hiroshima." > > Also included in the book are bin Laden's "Letters > to America" and his "Declaration of War against the > Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy > Places," as well as the World Islamic Statement > declaring "Jihad against Jews and Crusaders." These > crucial documents highlight the rationale behind and > the depth of bin Laden's hatred for the United > States. Moreover, Williams documents that Osama has > the international network of embedded terrorists to > carry out his threats. > > Although the media have reported on some of these > threatening developments and government insiders > have acknowledged the threat of nuclear attack, > until now no one has put all the pieces together in > a coherent, no nonsense way. Williams makes a > persuasive case that bin Laden and his deputies have > the motive and the means and are just waiting for > the opportunity to launch an apocalyptic attack on > the "Great Satan" of America. " From hflong at pacbell.net Mon Jun 20 20:19:08 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Mon Jun 20 20:19:23 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Correction -HPs Useless without NukAlert in Nuc Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050620180056.46465.qmail@web81803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050620181908.25777.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> www.Nukalert.com is better for data on it than the e-address given. HL howard long wrote:HPs must choose between Jacobus (below) and education like Project NukAlert. Both views are elaborated below. Any similar product is welcomed " -to educate society for preservation of life and mitigation of pain and suffering in any type of disaster", the mission of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. Howard Long. John Jacobus wrote: Again, you did not understand my comments. I was referring to the effects of an electro-magnetic pulses following a nuclear explosion. The pulse would affect all unprotected electrons. If the NukeAlert is properly grounded, then it will not be affected. As an HP I would not bother with a NukeAlert. While it could detect an increase in radiation levels, it tells nothing about the source, which could be from fallout or a stationary source moving toward you. It the increase is due to fallout, you do not know the direction it is coming from, so you will not know how to get out of the plume. My guess is that Paul Willliams might work for NukeAlert and is hoping to increase sales to those afraid of radiation. As an HP, I would not get one. I do not know of any HPs who have them. --- howard long wrote: > Wrong. NukAlert withstands great EMP (www.NukAlert.com). > John's ref is from 1977. > > "Does Osama bin Laden have nuclear weapons and other > weapons of mass destruction? If so, where are they? > Are they in the hands of al Qaeda sleeper cells in > the United States? Should Americans be bracing for a > nuclear attack? > > Former consultant for the FBI an organized crime and > international terrorism and a seasoned investigative > reporter, Paul L. Williams reveals the potential for > nuclear terrorism on US soil in this shocking > expose. Based on the findings of US, Israeli, > Pakistani, and British intelligence, Williams > describes how the theft of tactical nuclear weapons > from Russian arsenals have in all likelihood made > their way to al Qaeda cells throughout the United > States in preparation for the next terrorist attack. > > > Williams presents clear evidence showing that, in > the chaos following the breakup of the Soviet Union, > the Chechen Mafia got its hands on portable Russian > nuclear weapons. Between 1996 and 2001, mafia > members negotiated the sale of twenty nuclear > "suitcase bombs" to representatives of Osama bin > Laden. Far worse than so-called "dirty bombs," each > suitcase bomb is capable of killing millions of > Americans while exposing millions more to deadly > radioactive fallout. According to Williams, reliable > sources indicate that these bombs may already be in > the possession of al Qaeda operatives in such major > cities as New York, Washington, Miami, Chicago, Las > Vegas, Houston, and Los Angeles. In addition, bin > Laden has recruited former Soviet scientists and > technicians to maintain these weapons and recharge > their nuclear cores so that they may be deployed > immediately on his command. In 2001 he issued a > statement boasting of his intent to have America > experience a "Hiroshima." > > Also included in the book are bin Laden's "Letters > to America" and his "Declaration of War against the > Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy > Places," as well as the World Islamic Statement > declaring "Jihad against Jews and Crusaders." These > crucial documents highlight the rationale behind and > the depth of bin Laden's hatred for the United > States. Moreover, Williams documents that Osama has > the international network of embedded terrorists to > carry out his threats. > > Although the media have reported on some of these > threatening developments and government insiders > have acknowledged the threat of nuclear attack, > until now no one has put all the pieces together in > a coherent, no nonsense way. Williams makes a > persuasive case that bin Laden and his deputies have > the motive and the means and are just waiting for > the opportunity to launch an apocalyptic attack on > the "Great Satan" of America. " _______________________________________________ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon Jun 20 22:46:43 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon Jun 20 22:46:54 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: HPs Useless without NukAlert in Nuc Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050620180056.46465.qmail@web81803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050620204643.23811.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> I did not know or care if I am competing with the Project NukAlert. As I have said, I do not know of any HPs who are wearing a NukAlert. If you are, I don't really care. --- howard long wrote: > HPs must choose between Jacobus (below) and > education like Project NukAlert. > Both views are elaborated below. > > Any similar product is welcomed " -to educate > society for preservation of life and mitigation of > pai and suffering in antype of disaster" the mission > of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. > > Howard Long. > > John Jacobus wrote: > Again, you did not understand my comments. I was > referring to the effects of an electro-magnetic > pulses > following a nuclear explosion. The pulse would > affect > all unprotected electrons. If the NukeAlert is > properly grounded, then it will not be affected. > > As an HP I would not bother with a NukeAlert. While > it could detect an increase in radiation levels, it > tells nothing about the source, which could be from > fallout or a stationary source moving toward you. It > the increase is due to fallout, you do not know the > direction it is coming from, so you will not know > how > to get out of the plume. > > My guess is that Paul Willliams might work for > NukeAlert and is hoping to increase sales to those > afraid of radiation. As an HP, I would not get one. > I do not know of any HPs who have them. > > --- howard long wrote: > > > Wrong. NukAlert withstands great EMP > (info@NukAlert.com). > > John's ref is from 1977. > > > > "Does Osama bin Laden have nuclear weapons and > other > > weapons of mass destruction? If so, where are > they? > > Are they in the hands of al Qaeda sleeper cells in > > the United States? Should Americans be bracing for > a > > nuclear attack? > > > > Former consultant for the FBI an organized crime > and > > international terrorism and a seasoned > investigative > > reporter, Paul L. Williams reveals the potential > for > > nuclear terrorism on US soil in this shocking > > expose. Based on the findings of US, Israeli, > > Pakistani, and British intelligence, Williams > > describes how the theft of tactical nuclear > weapons > > from Russian arsenals have in all likelihood made > > their way to al Qaeda cells throughout the United > > States in preparation for the next terrorist > attack. > > > > > > Williams presents clear evidence showing that, in > > the chaos following the breakup of the Soviet > Union, > > the Chechen Mafia got its hands on portable > Russian > > nuclear weapons. Between 1996 and 2001, mafia > > members negotiated the sale of twenty nuclear > > "suitcase bombs" to representatives of Osama bin > > Laden. Far worse than so-called "dirty bombs," > each > > suitcase bomb is capable of killing millions of > > Americans while exposing millions more to deadly > > radioactive fallout. According to Williams, > reliable > > sources indicate that these bombs may already be > in > > the possession of al Qaeda operatives in such > major > > cities as New York, Washington, Miami, Chicago, > Las > > Vegas, Houston, and Los Angeles. In addition, bin > > Laden has recruited former Soviet scientists and > > technicians to maintain these weapons and recharge > > their nuclear cores so that they may be deployed > > immediately on his command. In 2001 he issued a > > statement boasting of his intent to have America > > experience a "Hiroshima." > > > > Also included in the book are bin Laden's "Letters > > to America" and his "Declaration of War against > the > > Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy > > Places," as well as the World Islamic Statement > > declaring "Jihad against Jews and Crusaders." > These > > crucial documents highlight the rationale behind > and > > the depth of bin Laden's hatred for the United > > States. Moreover, Williams documents that Osama > has > > the international network of embedded terrorists > to > > carry out his threats. > > > > Although the media have reported on some of these > > threatening developments and government insiders > > have acknowledged the threat of nuclear attack, > > until now no one has put all the pieces together > in > > a coherent, no nonsense way. Williams makes a > > persuasive case that bin Laden and his deputies > have > > the motive and the means and are just waiting for > > the opportunity to launch an apocalyptic attack on > > the "Great Satan" of America. " +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon Jun 20 22:49:27 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon Jun 20 22:49:37 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Correction -HPs Useless without NukAlert in Nuc Attack? In-Reply-To: <20050620181908.25777.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050620204927.80656.qmail@web54304.mail.yahoo.com> I see they also sell KI. Enjoy. --- howard long wrote: > www.Nukalert.com is better for data on it than the > e-address given. HL > > howard long wrote:HPs must > choose between Jacobus (below) and education like > Project NukAlert. > Both views are elaborated below. > > Any similar product is welcomed " -to educate > society for preservation of life and mitigation of > pain and suffering in any type of disaster", the > mission of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. > > Howard Long. > > John Jacobus wrote: > Again, you did not understand my comments. I was > referring to the effects of an electro-magnetic > pulses > following a nuclear explosion. The pulse would > affect > all unprotected electrons. If the NukeAlert is > properly grounded, then it will not be affected. > > As an HP I would not bother with a NukeAlert. While > it could detect an increase in radiation levels, it > tells nothing about the source, which could be from > fallout or a stationary source moving toward you. It > the increase is due to fallout, you do not know the > direction it is coming from, so you will not know > how > to get out of the plume. > > My guess is that Paul Willliams might work for > NukeAlert and is hoping to increase sales to those > afraid of radiation. As an HP, I would not get one. > I do not know of any HPs who have them. > > --- howard long wrote: > > > Wrong. NukAlert withstands great EMP > (www.NukAlert.com). > > John's ref is from 1977. > > > > "Does Osama bin Laden have nuclear weapons and > other > > weapons of mass destruction? If so, where are > they? > > Are they in the hands of al Qaeda sleeper cells in > > the United States? Should Americans be bracing for > a > > nuclear attack? > > > > Former consultant for the FBI an organized crime > and > > international terrorism and a seasoned > investigative > > reporter, Paul L. Williams reveals the potential > for > > nuclear terrorism on US soil in this shocking > > expose. Based on the findings of US, Israeli, > > Pakistani, and British intelligence, Williams > > describes how the theft of tactical nuclear > weapons > > from Russian arsenals have in all likelihood made > > their way to al Qaeda cells throughout the United > > States in preparation for the next terrorist > attack. > > > > > > Williams presents clear evidence showing that, in > > the chaos following the breakup of the Soviet > Union, > > the Chechen Mafia got its hands on portable > Russian > > nuclear weapons. Between 1996 and 2001, mafia > > members negotiated the sale of twenty nuclear > > "suitcase bombs" to representatives of Osama bin > > Laden. Far worse than so-called "dirty bombs," > each > > suitcase bomb is capable of killing millions of > > Americans while exposing millions more to deadly > > radioactive fallout. According to Williams, > reliable > > sources indicate that these bombs may already be > in > > the possession of al Qaeda operatives in such > major > > cities as New York, Washington, Miami, Chicago, > Las > > Vegas, Houston, and Los Angeles. In addition, bin > > Laden has recruited former Soviet scientists and > > technicians to maintain these weapons and recharge > > their nuclear cores so that they may be deployed > > immediately on his command. In 2001 he issued a > > statement boasting of his intent to have America > > experience a "Hiroshima." > > > > Also included in the book are bin Laden's "Letters > > to America" and his "Declaration of War against > the > > Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy > > Places," as well as the World Islamic Statement > > declaring "Jihad against Jews and Crusaders." > These > > crucial documents highlight the rationale behind > and > > the depth of bin Laden's hatred for the United > > States. Moreover, Williams documents that Osama > has > > the international network of embedded terrorists > to > > carry out his threats. > > > > Although the media have reported on some of these > > threatening developments and government insiders > > have acknowledged the threat of nuclear attack, > > until now no one has put all the pieces together > in > > a coherent, no nonsense way. Williams makes a > > persuasive case that bin Laden and his deputies > have > > the motive and the means and are just waiting for > > the opportunity to launch an apocalyptic attack on > > the "Great Satan" of America. " > _______________________________________________ > > > +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com From don.mercado at lmco.com Mon Jun 20 23:16:06 2005 From: don.mercado at lmco.com (Mercado, Don) Date: Mon Jun 20 23:39:53 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] TMI Lawsuit Message-ID: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE463A0B@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> Does anyone know the current status of the lawsuit against the operators of TMI for claimed exposures and injuries caused by the accident? The last I heard a judge threw out the lawsuit bec of lack of evidence, but I also heard the decision was going to be appealed. Any further news? Donald P. Mercado Radiation Safety Officer Explosives Safety Officer Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company O/9K-2S, B/157 1111 Lockheed Martin Way Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Ph. (408) 742-0759 Fx. (408) 756-0504 Don.Mercado@lmco.com "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- WOW!!! -- What a Ride!!!" From don.mercado at lmco.com Mon Jun 20 23:24:56 2005 From: don.mercado at lmco.com (Mercado, Don) Date: Mon Jun 20 23:40:34 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Reprocessing Message-ID: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE81F5A6@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> I have a question on spent fuel reprocessing. What will it take to get spent fuel recycling started? Can it be done in the U.S. in spite of J. Carter's ban? Would JC's Presidential decree have to be reversed and what does it take to do that? Has a Presidential decree been reversed before while that President was still alive? Could we hire France or some other country to reprocess it for us while that process moves forward? Just some speculation while waiting for some return phone calls. :^) Donald P. Mercado Radiation Safety Officer Explosives Safety Officer Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company O/9K-2S, B/157 1111 Lockheed Martin Way Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Ph. (408) 742-0759 Fx. (408) 756-0504 Don.Mercado@lmco.com "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- WOW!!! -- What a Ride!!!" From BobCherry at cox.net Tue Jun 21 00:07:59 2005 From: BobCherry at cox.net (Bob Cherry) Date: Tue Jun 21 00:08:14 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII-phase 2 Message-ID: <20050620220802.TKGG7787.lakermmtao10.cox.net@compaq> _____ National Academy of Sciences Monday, June 20, 2005 The National Academies has scheduled a public briefing at 11a.m. EDT on June 29, 2005 at room 100, 500 5th street, NW, Washington, DC. to release the report "Health Risks From Exposure To Low Levels Of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII-phase 2)". The public briefing will be webcast live and a prepublication copy (uncorrected proof) of the report will be posted on the Academy web site. The public may listen to a live audio webcast and submit questions via e-mail at http://nationalacademies.org. The electronic prepublication copy of the report also will be available there. Details of the release can be obtained from the Office of News and Public Information at 202 334-2138. _____ From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jun 21 08:05:24 2005 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Tue Jun 21 08:05:33 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Insurance for Nuclear Workers In-Reply-To: <004301c57585$90a4b260$6801a8c0@Laptop> Message-ID: <20050621060524.61017.qmail@web26410.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear Mr Richard Urban Jr, Thank you very much for the clarification. My sincere apologies to Mr. Mike Rennhack. I thought that the insurance was meant for radiation workers primarily because they are radiation workers.It was a genuine misunderstanding. Regards K.S.Parthasarathy Richard Urban Jr wrote: FYI, if you have not been informed yet... Mike Rennhack runs a website that is primarily devoted to U.S. Commercial Nuclear POWER PLANT workers, and/or contract workers elsewhere involved with radiological subjects, such as cleanups or U.S. Dept of Energy (A-bombs) sites, very little is addressed to nuclear medicine other than job listings... www.nukeworker.com. If you were to visit his site, you would see many posts regarding insurance coverage. Here in the United States, as a contract worker going from one refueling outage to the next, from one company to the next, and having long durations of unemployment, our various employers do NOT extend healthcare insurance during unemployment, nor does it transfer easily from one company to another (and the rates and coverage are not that great to begin with). Additionally, there are usually 'miniumum length of service' requirements with each company BEFORE you are covered (hard to reach when outages are only 4-8 weeks), and family coverage is an additional cost as well. The Consolidated Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) was mentioned in one of the postings, this was an act of US Congress to enable temporary continuation of insurance benefits between jobs, but the rates are quite high considering most of us are not earning a paycheck (or not as big a paycheck) between contracts. What Mike is attempting to offer is a SINGLE insurer, with unchanging rates, that we migrant nuclear workers here in the America's can take advantage of, instead of having to constantly change insurers, coverages, options, etc... NOT additional coverage JUST because we work with radiation. Good on ya Mike, keep it up!! Richard Urban (Thankfully covered under my wife's insurance) Yuma, AZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "parthasarathy k s" To: "Michael Rennhack" ; ; Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Inshurance for Nuclear Workers > Dear Radsafers, > > Michael Rennhack's suggestion of introducing special insurance for workers > in nuclear industry implies that the profession carries extra risk.Work in > nuclear industry is no riskier than that in any other profession.It is > safer than any other industry. Nuclear workers are less exposed > occupationally than others. The radiation dose generally is of the order > of a few mSv. Occupational exposures to nuclear workers are thus well > within the limits prescribed by the International Commission on > Radiological Protection (ICRP). > --------------------------------- Too much spam in your inbox? Yahoo! Mail gives you the best spam protection for FREE! Get Yahoo! Mail From rennhack at hotmail.com Mon Jun 20 15:57:41 2005 From: rennhack at hotmail.com (Michael Rennhack) Date: Tue Jun 21 10:48:50 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Insurance for Nuclear Workers In-Reply-To: <004301c57585$90a4b260$6801a8c0@Laptop> Message-ID: Richard, Thank you for explaining it better than I did, I'm sure you cleared up the confusion I caused. This discussion is being covered at the NukeWorker.com web site at this location: http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php?topic=5697 That link has a poll you can vote in, and an area to leave comments on this subject. You can also read everyone else's comments. We are looking for everyone’s thoughts that WOULD like us to investigate this option. Any potential issues that we may need to address. I am a neophyte in insurance matters, so any help is greatly appreciated. ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Richard Urban Jr" Reply-To: "Richard Urban Jr" To: "parthasarathy k s" CC: , Subject: Re: Insurance for Nuclear Workers Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 03:48:09 -0700 FYI, if you have not been informed yet... Mike Rennhack runs a website that is primarily devoted to U.S. Commercial Nuclear POWER PLANT workers, and/or contract workers elsewhere involved with radiological subjects, such as cleanups or U.S. Dept of Energy (A-bombs) sites, very little is addressed to nuclear medicine other than job listings... www.nukeworker.com. If you were to visit his site, you would see many posts regarding insurance coverage. Here in the United States, as a contract worker going from one refueling outage to the next, from one company to the next, and having long durations of unemployment, our various employers do NOT extend healthcare insurance during unemployment, nor does it transfer easily from one company to another (and the rates and coverage are not that great to begin with). Additionally, there are usually 'miniumum length of service' requirements with each company BEFORE you are covered (hard to reach when outages are only 4-8 weeks), and family coverage is an additional cost as well. The Consolidated Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) was mentioned in one of the postings, this was an act of US Congress to enable temporary continuation of insurance benefits between jobs, but the rates are quite high considering most of us are not earning a paycheck (or not as big a paycheck) between contracts. What Mike is attempting to offer is a SINGLE insurer, with unchanging rates, that we migrant nuclear workers here in the America's can take advantage of, instead of having to constantly change insurers, coverages, options, etc... NOT additional coverage JUST because we work with radiation. Good on ya Mike, keep it up!! Richard Urban (Thankfully covered under my wife's insurance) Yuma, AZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "parthasarathy k s" To: "Michael Rennhack" ; ; Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Inshurance for Nuclear Workers >Dear Radsafers, > >Michael Rennhack's suggestion of introducing special insurance for workers >in nuclear industry implies that the profession carries extra risk.Work in >nuclear industry is no riskier than that in any other profession.It is >safer than any other industry. Nuclear workers are less exposed >occupationally than others. The radiation dose generally is of the order of >a few mSv. Occupational exposures to nuclear workers are thus well within >the limits prescribed by the International Commission on Radiological >Protection (ICRP). > From rhelbig at california.com Tue Jun 21 14:02:54 2005 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Tue Jun 21 14:03:34 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Depleted Uranium Activists Message-ID: <000b01c57659$2d1142c0$33425142@roger1> I have been made the personal target of anti-DU activists Doug Rokke, Leuren Moret, Dennis Kyne and their mouthpiece internet "journalist" Bob Nichols and I have come to your list because I have contacted a few of you. I am a porcupine and not exactly the one you want to make mad and these folks, by slandering me all over the net and attempting to destroy my reputation for truthfullness have made me mad. I welcome contact with any of you who have information to share about the hyping of depleted uranium as being a genocidal "trojan horse nuclear" weapon and the threat it poses to the American soldier and the even more important Iraqi civilian. I have seen too many articles which parrot the hype, including one quoting a highly respected local cardiac surgeon who claims to have seen Iraqi babies disfigured by genetic defects due to their having been exposed to DU. It is time that these people are stopped with a concentrated factual offensive or the American soldier will lose its one-shot one-kill tank killing capability inherent in DU munitions. Thanks. Roger Helbig I got into this mess because I took advanced freshman physics (for engineers), am a geologist by degree, trained AF Disaster Preparedness (NBC) Officer and worked at a Navy Nuclear Shipyard for half my civilian career and I know some nuclear engineers .. anyway, I know enough to know that these folks are lying and that they don't know what they are talking about, but I sure can use some professional help From blc+ at pitt.edu Tue Jun 21 16:51:50 2005 From: blc+ at pitt.edu (Bernard Cohen) Date: Tue Jun 21 16:44:39 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Reprocessing In-Reply-To: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE81F5A6@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> References: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE81F5A6@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: <42B82986.9060500@pitt.edu> Mercado, Don wrote: >I have a question on spent fuel reprocessing. What will it take to get >spent fuel recycling started? Can it be done in the U.S. in spite of J. >Carter's ban? Would JC's Presidential decree have to be reversed and >what does it take to do that? Has a Presidential decree been reversed >before while that President was still alive? Could we hire France or >some other country to reprocess it for us while that process moves >forward? > ---I am quite sure the Carter decree was reversed during the Reagan administration, so there is no legal block to reprocessing in U.S. > >Just some speculation while waiting for some return phone calls. :^) > >Donald P. Mercado >Radiation Safety Officer >Explosives Safety Officer >Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company >O/9K-2S, B/157 >1111 Lockheed Martin Way >Sunnyvale, CA 94089 >Ph. (408) 742-0759 >Fx. (408) 756-0504 >Don.Mercado@lmco.com >"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving >safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in >broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming >-- WOW!!! -- What a Ride!!!" > > >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > From M.Schouwenburg at TNW.TUDelft.NL Tue Jun 21 17:18:06 2005 From: M.Schouwenburg at TNW.TUDelft.NL (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Tue Jun 21 17:22:06 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] IRPA European Congress 15 to 19 May 2006] Message-ID: <42B82FAE.9080102@TNW.TUDelft.NL> News from IRPA. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Colleagues, You may like to be reminded that the deadline for abstracts of papers to be presented at the IRPA European Congress (Paris, 15 to 19 May 2006) is fixed at 15 September 2005. Abstracts should be submitted through the web site at http://www.irpa2006europe.com Please note that reduced registration fees are available for registrations prior to 1 February 2006. Regards Penelope Allisy-Roberts ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marcel Schouwenburg - RadSafe moderator & List owner Head Training Centre Delft National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV) Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft Delft University of Technology Mekelweg 15 NL - 2629 JB DELFT The Netherlands Phone +31 (0)15 27 86575 Fax +31 (0)15 27 81717 email m.schouwenburg@tnw.tudelft.nl From jimm at WPI.EDU Tue Jun 21 17:37:27 2005 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Tue Jun 21 17:44:20 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Reprocessing Message-ID: Right. But it would have to become economical. (Not to mention public acceptance.) So, only as we plan for the necessary expanded nuclear power generation. Regards, Jim ________________________________ From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl on behalf of Bernard Cohen Sent: Tue 6/21/2005 10:51 AM To: Mercado, Don Cc: radsafe Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Reprocessing Mercado, Don wrote: >I have a question on spent fuel reprocessing. What will it take to get >spent fuel recycling started? Can it be done in the U.S. in spite of J. >Carter's ban? Would JC's Presidential decree have to be reversed and >what does it take to do that? Has a Presidential decree been reversed >before while that President was still alive? Could we hire France or >some other country to reprocess it for us while that process moves >forward? > ---I am quite sure the Carter decree was reversed during the Reagan administration, so there is no legal block to reprocessing in U.S. > >Just some speculation while waiting for some return phone calls. :^) > >Donald P. Mercado >Radiation Safety Officer >Explosives Safety Officer >Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company >O/9K-2S, B/157 >1111 Lockheed Martin Way >Sunnyvale, CA 94089 >Ph. (408) 742-0759 >Fx. (408) 756-0504 >Don.Mercado@lmco.com >"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving >safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in >broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming >-- WOW!!! -- What a Ride!!!" > > >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From gstanford at aya.yale.edu Tue Jun 21 18:11:38 2005 From: gstanford at aya.yale.edu (George Stanford) Date: Tue Jun 21 18:14:06 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Reprocessing In-Reply-To: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE81F5A6@emss01m12.us.lmco.c om> References: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE81F5A6@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050620180111.0354c9e0@mail.comcast.net> To: Don Mercado: Interesting questions -- but let's back up and consider what kind of recycling would be worthwhile. Recycle back into thermal reactors (PUREX & MOX) is not the panacea that many picture. Back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the following (if I've goofed, someone please correct me). All numbers are approximate. Only about 15% of the heavy metal in spent LWR fuel can be cycled back into an LWR, the remainder being uranium that is almost back to the composition of natural uranium. (It could, of course, be re-enriched -- contributing another 15% or so -- or used in CANDUs without re-enrichment.) Of the 15% recycled, some 5% is consumed (0.75% of the original fuel), for a net increase of resource utilization of about 15%. In other words, if a thermal reactor extracts 5% of the energy in its fuel (0.6% of the energy in the mined uranium) in one pass, the second pass would bring it up to 5.75% of the fuel's energy, raising the overall efficiency to about 0.7%. Subsequent passes can contribute little. Very roughly, a third pass contains 2.25% (15% of 15%) of the original fuel, of which perhaps 5% is burned -- bringing the fuel utilization up to about 5.85%. The benefits of MOX recycle are a gain of 15% - 20% in resource utilization, and some streamlining of the waste-management problem -- but the problem of long-term activity in the waste is only reduced somewhat, not eliminated. MOX with thermal reactors cannot close the nuclear fuel cycle. The story is very different with pyrometallurgical processing and fast reactors -- a combination that can extract virtually all of the energy in the mined uranium (resource utilization improved by more than 10,000%) -- and, importantly, consume the long-lived transuranic actinides instead of consigning them to Yucca Mountain. For a more detailed discussion of the desirability of MOX recycle, see the paper "LWR Recycle: Necessity or Impediment?" at . Fast reactors can live happily on thermal-reactor spent fuel, fully closing closing the nuclear fuel cycle. As I see it, a movement to institute recycling in the USA should be focused on pyroprocessing and fast reactors. While MOX is indeed desirable for despoiling weapons-grade plutonium, constructing an extensive MOX infrastructure for civilian fuel would be a serious waste of resources. Best regards, George Stanford ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 09:51 AM 6/21/2005, Bernard Cohen wrote: ---I am quite sure the Carter decree was reversed during the Reagan administration, so there is no legal block to reprocessing in U.S. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 04:24 PM 6/20/2005, Mercado, Don wrote: I have a question on spent fuel reprocessing. What will it take to get spent fuel recycling started? Can it be done in the U.S. in spite of J. Carter's ban? Would JC's Presidential decree have to be reversed and what does it take to do that? Has a Presidential decree been reversed before while that President was still alive? Could we hire France or some other country to reprocess it for us while that process moves forward? Just some speculation while waiting for some return phone calls. :^) Donald P. Mercado Radiation Safety Officer Explosives Safety Officer Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company O/9K-2S, B/157 1111 Lockheed Martin Way Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Ph. (408) 742-0759 Fx. (408) 756-0504 Don.Mercado@lmco.com "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- WOW!!! -- What a Ride!!!" _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Tue Jun 21 21:40:38 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue Jun 21 21:40:48 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII-phase 2 In-Reply-To: <20050620220802.TKGG7787.lakermmtao10.cox.net@compaq> Message-ID: <20050621194038.27497.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> When and what was phase 1? --- Bob Cherry wrote: > _____ > > > National Academy of > Sciences > > Monday, June 20, 2005 > > The National Academies has scheduled a public > briefing at 11a.m. EDT on June > 29, 2005 at room 100, 500 5th street, NW, > Washington, DC. to release the > report "Health Risks From Exposure To Low Levels Of > Ionizing Radiation (BEIR > VII-phase 2)". The public briefing will be webcast > live and a prepublication > copy +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From jimm at WPI.EDU Tue Jun 21 22:00:16 2005 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Tue Jun 21 22:03:07 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII-phase 2 Message-ID: Phase 1 was a review to decide whether there was enough info to do BEIR VII following BEIR V (1990). That was about 1997. Regards, Jim Muckerheide ________________________________ From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl on behalf of John Jacobus Sent: Tue 6/21/2005 3:40 PM To: Bob Cherry; radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII-phase 2 When and what was phase 1? --- Bob Cherry wrote: > _____ > > > National Academy of > Sciences > > Monday, June 20, 2005 > > The National Academies has scheduled a public > briefing at 11a.m. EDT on June > 29, 2005 at room 100, 500 5th street, NW, > Washington, DC. to release the > report "Health Risks From Exposure To Low Levels Of > Ionizing Radiation (BEIR > VII-phase 2)". The public briefing will be webcast > live and a prepublication > copy +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From JGinniver at aol.com Tue Jun 21 22:45:02 2005 From: JGinniver at aol.com (JGinniver@aol.com) Date: Tue Jun 21 22:45:20 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Personal dosimeters for Radon Message-ID: Are any list members aware of types or suppliers of personal dosimeters for assessing Radon exposure? Alternatively what methods do list members use for assessing worker exposure to Radon? Regards, Julian From JGinniver at aol.com Tue Jun 21 23:14:20 2005 From: JGinniver at aol.com (JGinniver@aol.com) Date: Tue Jun 21 23:17:35 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Reprocessing Message-ID: Its my understanding that currently reprocessing is uneconomic. Germany at least, and possibly other countries, have indicated that they would like to cancel their reprocessing contracts with British Nuclear Group in the UK. Even British Energy, the largest of the two nuclear generating companies has stated that they the current contracts with BNG are uneconomic and that they would like to cancel their contracts with BNG and have an American system of payment into a government fund, based on MWs generated, and direct disposal. However I believe that this is politically unacceptable as it would open the doors to other countries cancelling their reprocessing contracts with BNG. I believe that Sizewell B, the only UK PWR has not, as yet, decided on the final management option for their fuel. Historically reprocessing made sense in the UK for two reasons, the 1st generation of commercial nuclear plants used natural uranium fuel clad in a magnesium metal can. They were termed Magnox reactors (MAGnesium Non-OXidising metal). This clad material was very unstable once it had been removed from the reactor and placed in storage ponds. As a result the only real option was reprocessing. Significant problems occurred when they were faults with the reprocessing plants and the fuel had to be stored for extended periods. The second reason was that from the early 1950s the UK worked towards a Commercial Fast Breeder Reactor programme, consequently all of the fuel from bothe the 1st generation of plants (Magnox) and the 2nd generation (AGR) was reprocessed to and the depleted uranium and plutonium stockpiled for use in commercial fast Breeder Plants. Unfortunately the Fast Breeder Programme in the UK was terminated in 1994 and there is no longer a use for the stockpiles of depleted uranium and Plutonium. I believe that Plutonium in the UK is now regarded as having no-commercial value and is now treated as simple a historic waste to be disposed of. I don't know the history within France which has the only other major commercial reprocessing plant at Cap-le-Hague, but they also had a strong fast Breeder Programme which culminated in the construction of Super-phenix, a commercial power plant with an installed capacity of around 1200 Mw. Unfortunately this plant was shut down after less than 1 effective full power year of operation. Japan is one of the countries currently pursuing the construction of a commercial sized reprocessing plant, but again this was part of their so called pluthermal project. I understand they recently received approval to restart the mothballed Monju Fast Breeder reactor which is intended to provide some impetus to restarting the work toward a commercial Fast Breeder. Given that the US no longer has a Fast Breeder Programme, Clinch River was cancelled by the same nice Mr Carter that prohibited reprocessing. That reprocessing is not seen as commercially viable, and that the track record in the US of commercial reprocessing (West Valley) has not been very successful. Why would anyone want to build a commercial reprocessing plant in the US, or contract to either the UK, France or Japan if it becomes available to undertake reprocessing? My personal view is that for the time being, spent fuel should go for direct disposal in an underground facility, but that it should be disposed of in a manner that allows future generations to recover and reprocess it if they so wish. To end on a Radiological Note, I believe that a few years ago (<5?) the European Union funded a study to see whether the doses to the public were greater from reprocessing than from direct disposal and the mining, milling and manufacture of new fuel. I understand that there was no significant difference in the assessed collective doses to those exposed from reprocessing than to those exposed through the manufacture of new fuel. They key difference was in the location of the exposed populations. For reprocessing doses were mainly received by the populations of the countries benefiting from the electricity generated by nuclear plants, whereas for new fuel the doses were mainly received by groups that didn't directly benefit from the electricity generation (although they would benefit somewhat from the mining and milling activities). Don, I would be interested in the reasons why you feel that commercial nuclear fuel should be reprocessed. Regards, Julian From jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca Wed Jun 22 03:49:48 2005 From: jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca (Jaro) Date: Wed Jun 22 03:49:54 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Reprocessing In-Reply-To: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE81F5A6@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: I think its a mistake to look just at economics and profitability. If we were to do that consistently, there would be very few recycling programs in general, because in many cases its easier to make new things, from fresh stock, than to collect, sort and process recycled material. I think that economics counts only to the extent that the cost of a recycling scheme should not be very high in the global picture. And that's certainly the case with nuclear fuel reprocessing and MOX manufacture, within the nuclear industry as a whole. In terms of cents per kWh of energy produced & sold by the industry, a reprocessing program would add a very small premium -- much like the premiums for SNF disposal or liability insurance. So the question comes down to "why bother doing it at all ?" Probably for environmental reasons -- like other recycling programs, aiming to reduce garbage landfills. With SNF, separating the FPs and vitrifying them for disposal not only cuts the volume of waste (although perhaps not the size of the disposal facility, due to decay heat limitations), it probably also allows the design of the storage facility to be limited to a ~1E3y design life, instead of ~1E6y. And if we're convinced that we're eventually going to have a complete nuclear fuel cycle, including breeder reactors anyway, then we might as well get started with the reprocessing industry now and stock the separated fuel, like the gold treasure at Fort Knox, for future use. In terms of value of the energy content, the nuke store would likely be worth much more than the gold. Of course there's no big rush -- especially since the large stocks of PWR SNF can be recycled much cheaper than using the PUREX process, by initially using the DUPIC process instead: The "Direct Use of Pwr fuel In CANDUs" uses a dry process to refabricate the SNF pellets into new ones, which are suitable for use in CANDU reactors without any chemical separation. If the issues weren't so politicized, we could probably come to some sort of agreement whereby the US pays Canada to take their spent fuel, which is then used in CANDUs to produce electricity, sold back to the US (ie. Canada makes money twice). Canada would then be left with the responsibility of long-term storage of the spent fuel in its national repository -- which appears destined to be a retrievable type (according to the Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization - NWMO - http://www.nwmo.ca/ ), allowing for the a deferred program of chemical reprocessing at some future time. Then when chemical reprocessing becomes profitable because of uranium price increases, Canada makes money a third time, by selling MOX back to the US :-) Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.10/25 - Release Date: 6/21/2005 From james at bovik.org Wed Jun 22 06:50:51 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Wed Jun 22 06:51:05 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Depleted Uranium Activists Message-ID: <42B8EE2B.1020203@bovik.org> Roger Helbig wrote: >... I welcome contact with any of you who have information to > share about the hyping of depleted uranium as being a genocidal > "Trojan horse nuclear" weapon and the threat it poses to the > American soldier and the even more important Iraqi civilian. I know just what it's like to be lied to about the effects of uranium inhalation exposure. Nobody has yet bothered to develop a long-term toxicological profile of uranyl compound inhalation exposure, even though they are all known reproductive and developmental toxins. That hasn't stopped credentialed authorities from repeatedly claiming that uranium inhalation exposure is generally safe in low doses, and it hasn't stopped credentialed authorities from failing to mention the fact that uranium is a known reproductive and developmental toxin in documents where they purportedly discuss the risks of uranium exposure. The birth defect rate in Basrah has gone up about ten times in the past fifteen years, and the increase in Gulf War veterans was 50% as of 1999. Sadly, both trends have been increasing and accelerating. The Federal Register recently published my rulemaking petition for recognition of the developmental and reproductive toxicity of heavy metals (70 FR 34699): http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/downloader/PRM_2026_lib/1563-0001.htm?printable=1 http://www.bovik.org/du/NRC-PRM-20-26.pdf I hope you will consider reporting your findings in a comment. > It is time that [anti-DU activists] are stopped with a concentrated > factual offensive or the American soldier will lose its one-shot > one-kill tank killing capability inherent in DU munitions. Sadly, I'm afraid that our possession of depleted uranium munitions forms a clear and convincing argument by our potential enemies to develop their own depleted weapon armor and ordnance capabilities, which would mean, in turn, that they would have access to the entire fuel cycle including uranium enrichments. If we persist in holding on to these super-bullets, then our potential adversaries will have no alternative but to clandestinely develop counter-measures including similar munitions, DU armor, and atomic bombs. > I know enough to know that these folks are lying and that they > don't know what they are talking about, but I sure can use > some professional help From the peer-reviewed medical literature: "Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs" -- Doyle et al. Int. J. Epidemiol..2004; 33: 74-86. "Infants conceived postwar to male GWVs had significantly higher prevalence of tricuspid valve insufficicieny (relative risk [RR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-6.6; p = 0.039) and aortic valve stenosis (RR, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.2-31.0; p = 0.026) compared to infants conceived postwar to nondeployed veteran males. Among infants of male GWVs, aortic valve stenosis (RR, 163; 95% CI, 0.09-294; p = 0.011) and renal agenesis or hypoplasia (RR, 16.3; 95% CI, 0.09-294; p = 0.011) were significantly higher among infants conceived postwar than prewar." -- Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2003 Apr;67(4):246-60. Here are some quotes with their full citations from "A review of the effects of uranium and depleted uranium exposure on reproduction and fetal development," in Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol. 17, pp. 180-191 (2001), which is temporarily at: http://www.bovik.org/du/reproduction-review-2001.pdf "In rats, there is strong evidence of DU accumulation in tissues including testes, bone, kidneys, and brain." Pellmar, T.C., Fuciarelli, A.F., Ejnik, J.W., Hamilton, M., Hogan, J., Strocko, S., Edmond, C., Mottaz, H.M. and Landauer, M.R. "Distribution of uranium in rats implanted with depleted uranium pellets," Toxicol Sci, vol. 49, pp. 29-39 (1999.) "Degenerative changes in the testes resulting in aspermia in the testes and epididymis ... apparently a result of uranyl nitrate" Maynard, E.A., Downs, W.L. and Hodge, H.C., "Oral toxicity of uranium compounds," in Voegtlin, C. and Hodge, H.C., editors, Pharmacology and Toxicology of Uranium, Volume 3 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1953), pp. 1221-1369. "uranium exposure causes morphologic changes in the rat testes possibly as the result of a uranium-induced autoimmune response.... Average testes weight was significantly (P0.05) decreased in rats exposed to uranyl nitrate.... Titers of testicular autoantibodies were described as fairly high for rats with chronic exposure to uranium and the authors relate this finding to the possibility that the observed testicular changes are an autoimmune response to protein confirmation changes as a result of uranium-protein interactions. Four other references are cited ... as evidence of an interaction between uranium and the testes or thyroid but are not reviewed here." Malenchenko, A.F., Barkun, N.A. and Guseva, G.F., "Effect of uranium on the induction and course of experimental autoimmune orchitis and thyroiditis," J Hyg Epidemiol Microbiol Immunol, vol. 22, pp. 268-277 (1978.) "The number of female mice impregnated successfully was significantly reduced at all levels of uranium exposure as compared with negative controls." Hu, Q. and Zhu, S., "Induction of chromosomal aberrations in male mouse germ cells by uranyl fluoride containing enriched uranium," Mutat Res, vol. 244, pp. 209-214 (1990.) Testicular injection with ... uranyl fluoride ... resulted in a dose-dependent increase in chromosomal aberrations (i.e., DNA breakage, SCEs) in spermatogonia, primary spermatocytes, and mature sperm of adult mice." Zhu, S.P., Hu, Q.Y. and Lun, M.Y., "Studies on reproductive toxicity induced by enriched uranium," Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi, vol. 28, pp. 219-222 (1994.) "existing data indicate that implanted DU translocates to the rodent testes and ovary, the placenta, and fetus.... DU has been shown to be genotoxic...." Benson, K.A., Evaluation of the health risks of embedded depleted uranium (DU) shrapnel on pregnancy and offspring development, Annual Report No. 19981118065 (October 1998.) That quote also cites Pellmar, et al., as above, and A. Miller et al., from the U.S. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, whose work can be found on MEDLINE and here: http://www.bovik.org/du/Miller-DNA-damage.pdf For more information please see: http://www.bovik.org/du/chromosome-abberations.pdf http://www.bovik.org/du/devtox-mice.pdf http://www.bovik.org/du/inhalation-est.pdf http://www.bovik.org/du/5_Durakovic.pdf http://www.bovik.org/du/4_Durakovic.pdf Sincerely, James Salsman From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jun 22 17:22:32 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed Jun 22 17:22:42 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: [Know_Nukes] Study shows importance of exposure age for Hanford nuclear workers cancer risk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050622152232.10524.qmail@web54307.mail.yahoo.com> The journal reference is Wing, S, and Richardson, DB, "Age at exposure to ionising radiation and cancer mortality among Hanford workers: follow up through 1994," Occup. Environ. Med., Jul 2005; 62: 465 - 472. --- Richard wrote: > > http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jun05/wing8061605.htm > UNC News release -- Study shows importance of > exposure age for Hanford > nuclear workers' cancer risk > +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From frantaj at aecl.ca Wed Jun 22 19:52:57 2005 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Wed Jun 22 19:53:22 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] defending Pierre Pellerin Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A41F@sps13.aecl.ca> NUCLEAR NEWS FLASHES - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 INTERNATIONAL NEWS: --FRENCH NUCLEAR NOTABLES CALLED ON PRESIDENT JACQUES CHIRAC TO DEFEND PIERRE PELLERIN, the former French radiation protection chief who has become the target of the antinuclear community and a symbol of official arrogance for his failure to advise protective countermeasures when the Chernobyl fallout cloud touched parts of France in spring 1986. Some sixty scientists and engineers from the French nuclear establishment, many retired, signed a letter defending Pellerin against what they called " odious attacks" by antinuclear activists and said authorities "cannot remain indifferent and silent" but should "honor themselves" by refuting the attacks. They said that by remaining "calm" and "courageous" before the Chernobyl cloud, Pellerin had, on the contrary, "avoided an unjustified panic whose consequences could have been serious." Among the signatories were former Prime Minister Pierre Messmer, Nobel Laureate Georges Charpak, former Framatome chiefs Jean-Claude Leny and Dominique Vignon, former Electricite de France Executive Vice President Remy Carle, and European Nuclear Society President Bertrand Barre. ========================================== CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jun 22 21:39:51 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed Jun 22 21:40:02 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Report on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNET) and Rare Isotope Accelerator Message-ID: <20050622193952.3997.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> -----Original Message----- From: fyi@aip.org Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 2:00 PM To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS) Subject: FYI #94: Senate Report Language on RNEP and DOE's RIA FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 94: June 22, 2005 Senate Armed Services Report Language on RNEP and Rare Isotope Accelerator The report accompanying the Senate Armed Services Committee bill, S.1042, contains language regarding the controversial request to research the feasibility of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), or as it is sometimes called, a "Bunker Buster." Last year, Congress followed the lead of House appropriators in deciding not to fund an RNEP study. This year, the House Armed Services Committee took a different approach, taking "nuclear" out of the weapon's configuration, and moving funding for the program from the Department of Energy to the Department of Defense (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/078.html .) House appropriators provided no Department of Energy funding for RNEP in the FY 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/073.html .) The following are selections from the Senate Armed Services Committee report (106-69) regarding RNEP, as well as report language regarding possible nuclear weapons applications of research involving the Department of Energy's Rape Isotope Accelerator. ROBUST NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR: AIR FORCE: "The budget request included $15.2 million in PE 64222F for development of nuclear weapons support, including $1.0 million for the development of nuclear weapons and counterproliferation technologies to support joint Air Force and National Nuclear Security Administration efforts associated with logistics and aircraft integration for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP). The committee notes that the evaluation of RNEP feasibility by the Department of Energy is not scheduled to be completed prior to 2007. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.0 million in PE 64222F for efforts associated with logistics and aircraft integration for the RNEP." DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: "The committee recommends $4.0 million for the robust nuclear earth penetrator (RNEP), the amount of the budget request. Funding is provided to prepare and execute the sled track impact test at Sandia National Laboratories on the feasibility of case hardening and target penetration. The committee has received testimony from the Secretary of Defense and the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, on the continued proliferation of hard and deeply buried targets and the resulting military utility of completing the RNEP feasibility study. "The committee notes that section 3117 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) prohibits the Secretary of Energy from commencing the engineering development phase (Phase 6.3) of the nuclear weapons development process, or any subsequent phase, of a robust nuclear earth penetrator unless specifically authorized by Congress. The funding requested is for Phase 6.2 feasibility study only. "The committee has not included the $4.5 million requested within the Air Force budget for the development of logistics, integration, and hardware requirements for carriage of the RNEP on the B-2 aircraft. The committee does not believe that these activities are necessary to evaluate the feasibility of RNEP." RARE ISOTOPE ACCELERATOR: "Subtitle A - National Security Programs Authorizations National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) "National security implications of the Rare Isotope Accelerator "The committee is aware that the Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA) is a high priority civilian science facility under study by the Department of Energy Office of Science. The committee understands that RIA would allow precise measurements of nuclear physics phenomena through the development of beams of isotopes that are 10 to 100 times more powerful than those available today and in many cases not available at all. The committee believes such research into the fundamental structure of matter may have possible utility in the analysis of nuclear weapons physics. "The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to report to the congressional defense committees no later than 90 days after enactment of this Act on the potential utility, if any, of data from the RIA on issues concerning national security and on any duplication between the potential capability of the RIA and any capabilities being developed with atomic energy defense funds." ############### Richard M. Jones Media and Government Relations Division The American Institute of Physics fyi@aip.org http://www.aip.org/gov (301) 209-3094 ##END########## +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com From jjcohen at prodigy.net Thu Jun 23 01:41:09 2005 From: jjcohen at prodigy.net (jjcohen@prodigy.net) Date: Thu Jun 23 01:40:48 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Report on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNET)and Rare Isotope Accelerator References: <20050622193952.3997.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000901c57783$e3313080$c4f4e245@domainnotset.invalid> John et al, Whether it uses nuclear or conventional technology, I still think the RNEP is a dumb idea. I seriously doubt that the technohustlers who are pushing the concept have a clue as to a feasible physical principle on how it could work. All work on the RNEP will likely be classified to cover up the inevitable blundering and eventually millions of taxpayer's dollars will be spent with nothing to show for it. Another example of government business as usual. Jerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Jacobus" To: "radsafe" ; Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:39 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Report on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNET)and Rare Isotope Accelerator > > -----Original Message----- > From: fyi@aip.org > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 2:00 PM > To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS) > Subject: FYI #94: Senate Report Language on RNEP and > DOE's RIA > > FYI > The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science > Policy News > Number 94: June 22, 2005 > > Senate Armed Services Report Language on RNEP and Rare > Isotope Accelerator > > The report accompanying the Senate Armed Services > Committee bill, S.1042, contains language regarding > the controversial request to research the feasibility > of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), or as it > is sometimes called, a "Bunker Buster." Last year, > Congress followed the lead of House appropriators in > deciding not to fund an RNEP study. This year, the > House Armed Services Committee took a different > approach, taking "nuclear" out of the weapon's > configuration, and moving funding for the program from > the Department of Energy to the Department of Defense > (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/078.html .) House > appropriators provided no Department of Energy funding > for RNEP in the FY 2006 Energy and Water Development > Appropriations Bill (see > http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/073.html .) > > The following are selections from the Senate Armed > Services Committee report (106-69) regarding RNEP, as > well as report language regarding possible nuclear > weapons applications of research involving the > Department of Energy's Rape Isotope Accelerator. > > ROBUST NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR: > > AIR FORCE: > "The budget request included $15.2 million in PE > 64222F for development of nuclear weapons support, > including $1.0 million for the development of nuclear > weapons and counterproliferation technologies to > support joint Air Force and National Nuclear Security > Administration efforts associated with logistics and > aircraft integration for the Robust Nuclear Earth > Penetrator (RNEP). The committee notes that the > evaluation of RNEP feasibility by the Department of > Energy is not scheduled to be completed prior to 2007. > Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.0 > million in PE 64222F for efforts associated with > logistics and aircraft integration for the RNEP." > > DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: > "The committee recommends $4.0 million for the robust > nuclear earth penetrator (RNEP), the amount of the > budget request. Funding is provided to prepare and > execute the sled track impact test at Sandia National > Laboratories on the feasibility of case hardening and > target penetration. The committee has received > testimony from the Secretary of Defense and the > Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, on the continued > proliferation of hard and deeply buried targets and > the resulting military utility of completing the RNEP > feasibility study. > > "The committee notes that section 3117 of the National > Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public > Law 108-136) prohibits the Secretary of Energy from > commencing the engineering development phase (Phase > 6.3) of the nuclear weapons development process, or > any subsequent phase, of a robust nuclear earth > penetrator unless specifically authorized by Congress. > The funding requested is for Phase 6.2 feasibility > study only. > > "The committee has not included the $4.5 million > requested within the Air Force budget for the > development of logistics, integration, and hardware > requirements for carriage of the RNEP on the B-2 > aircraft. The committee does not believe that these > activities are necessary to evaluate the feasibility > of RNEP." > > > RARE ISOTOPE ACCELERATOR: > > "Subtitle A - National Security Programs > Authorizations National Nuclear Security > Administration (sec. 3101) > > "National security implications of the Rare Isotope > Accelerator > > "The committee is aware that the Rare Isotope > Accelerator (RIA) is a high priority civilian science > facility under study by the Department of Energy > Office of Science. The committee understands that RIA > would allow precise measurements of nuclear physics > phenomena through the development of beams of isotopes > that are 10 to 100 times more powerful than those > available today and in many cases not available at > all. The committee believes such research into the > fundamental structure of matter may have possible > utility in the analysis of nuclear weapons physics. > > "The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to > report to the congressional defense committees no > later than 90 days after enactment of this Act on the > potential utility, if any, of data from the RIA on > issues concerning national security and on any > duplication between the potential capability of the > RIA and any capabilities being developed with atomic > energy defense funds." > > ############### > Richard M. Jones > Media and Government Relations Division > The American Institute of Physics > fyi@aip.org http://www.aip.org/gov > (301) 209-3094 > ##END########## > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. > > -- John > John Jacobus, MS > Certified Health Physicist > e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com > > > > ____________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Sports > Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football > http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From james at bovik.org Thu Jun 23 06:42:39 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Thu Jun 23 06:42:55 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Depleted Uranium Activists In-Reply-To: <00a601c57796$ab2ed4e0$e9485142@roger1> References: <42B8EE2B.1020203@bovik.org> <003801c576ee$5e4680e0$c94b5142@roger1> <42B926D2.6010206@bovik.org> <013d01c5770a$4f2302c0$c94b5142@roger1> <42B9AB15.4080706@bovik.org> <00a601c57796$ab2ed4e0$e9485142@roger1> Message-ID: <42BA3DBF.50208@bovik.org> > ...DU is...more than likely...the least likely cause of birth defects.... On the contrary: Of all the reproductive toxins to which combat veterans of the February 1991 conflict in Iraq were exposed, uranyl is the most prevalent per mutation rate. Everything else in Iraq is composed of things which are mostly not reproductive toxins, except to the extent that they include uranyl compounds, and the other known reproductive toxins are not as plentiful, as far as I can tell, even accounting for those with a greater reproductive toxicity than uranyl. Oil well fires are a problem. To figure out how much, you need the statistics for deployment regions. Aromatic petroleum combustion products cause cancer but usually not any mutations of the chromosomes in sperm. Other things like vaccinations and antidotes don't do anything by themselves. The fact remains that uranyl is a strong reproductive toxin. Does anyone have such geographical statistics for February 1991? I think Melissa McDiarmid, M.D. is supposed to. Did she ever get them? Sincerely, James Salsman From ab19283 at excite.com Thu Jun 23 04:07:22 2005 From: ab19283 at excite.com (A) Date: Thu Jun 23 09:48:41 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical Radiological Technician Oversight Message-ID: <20050623020722.E30E4109EF6@xprdmailfe1.nwk.excite.com> Dear Radsafe Folks, What mechanisims are in place to prevent Medical Radiological Techs from intentionally or unintentionally overexposing their patients to X-rays? Sincerely, Arthur _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! From jimm at WPI.EDU Thu Jun 23 06:43:15 2005 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Thu Jun 23 09:50:09 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: EFN - In support of Pierre Pellerin Message-ID: Dear Bruno, Thank you for your excellent msg explaining the background of Pr Pellerin's case! Many of us who know him have great admiration and affection for our friend Dr. Pellerin, especially also for his desire to challenge this fraud and calumny that the anti-nuclear people undertake as normal daily effort in their "political cause," and that many in the media promulgate with malice, and present as the truth, but then, when challenged, justify that by claiming that they are just presenting what others are saying, but then do not adequately inform others that they have been presenting false information. It is more typical that many lesser people retreat quietly. It is unfortunate that this situation is continuing after his court victories, which not only succeeded in vindicating him, but in displaying the lack of integrity and morality in the anti-nuclear claims. I am forwarding this for information to some friends (who should forward accordingly!. I have done a rough translation of your reports to English which are adequate to understand the situation of the court proceedings. Our French-speakers are requested to hilight the egregious errors. I have left your French text below the English translation for those more knowledgeable than I to make corrections. Regards, Jim -----Original Message----- From: EFN - Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy [mailto:efn@ecolo.org] Sent: Wed 6/22/2005 7:34 PM To: undisclosed-recipients Subject: EFN - In support of Pierre Pellerin Dear Jim, Thanks for your kind support to Pierre PELLERIN. He'll certainly be glad to know, and I ask Michel Lung (vice-secretary of EFN, in copy of this message) to inform him about your support. I think a good article published by you in English language in your newsletter would be useful both for him (he'll be happy to see that his cause is attracting support from the US) and for the cause (if you follow this suggestion and write a piece about it, I'll be glad to post your article on EFN's web site in the "documents in English" section). A few years ago, Pellerin was so vilified in the media (and this is still the case to a large extent) that no one dared refer to him any more, even in most of the official circles and in the nuclear community after he retired. The media constantly presented him as a liar (this is still the case) trying to hide the dramatic consequences of Tchernobyl accident in France, which wasn't true (both the dramatic consequences in France, and the fact that he tried to hide them). The expression "mensonges de Tchernobyl" (Chernobyl lies) became famous in France as early as 1986 (although totally unfounded) and has been unduly associated to his name ever since. In reality he informed the public very well of the real facts, that levels of radiation much higher than usual background levels were measured throughout the whole of France after the accident, and that these levels of radiation, although higher than usual, presented no risk for public health on the French territory. EFN and a rather small number of friends decided to encourage him to continue and defend his case several years ago, because he did a fine job during his whole career, and especially at the moment of the Tchernobyl accident. The SFEN (French nuclear Energy Society) also wrote some good articles and supported him, and in the meanwhile he won all of his 6 1/2 cases in court against many of the French anti-nuclear leaders, including Noel Mam?re, then head of the Green Movement in France, who constantly continued to lie and invent their version of his story. The seventh case in court (in fact it was the first one) unfortunately was dropped half-way because of an inadequate juridical procedure, but even in this case the judge nevertheless considered that the anti-nuclear allegations were erronated and defamatory against him. Now he is still the object of numerous lies on the media and TV. A lie repeated 100 times tends to be considered as the ultimate truth by the public (the disinformation continues, which is the reason of this letter to Jacques Chirac)... But, especially in nuclear circles, because of the information work done by EFN and the SFEN, it is now well known and generally reckognized that he did a good job. Of course the mass media continue to speak of him rather negatively, and with great arrogance, and always fail to mention that he won all his cases in court. Below is a copy of three messages (unfortunately only in French, but perhaps tha altavista online translation service can help) on this subject that I wrote on 14 september 2000, 10 October 2001 and 22 October 2002. Nothing has really changed since, except that he won this case in first judgement, and then the Appeal, as well as the second appeal in the French higher court (Cassation), and five other similar trials. Yours sincerely, with kindest regards. Bruno Comby. President of EFN Yours sincerely, with our kindest regards. Bruno Comby President of EFN Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy 55 rue Victor Hugo, 78800 Houilles, France Phone: + 33 1 30 86 00 33 - Fax: +33 1 30 86 00 10 E-mail: nuc-en@ecolo.org Web site: http://www.ecolo.org (click on a flag) ____________________________ EFN is a not-for-profit international organization gathering 7000 members and supporters, and a network of similar organizations and of local correspondents in more than 50 countries, to inform the public on energy and the environment. EFN-USA is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt not-for-profit organization incorporated in the United States, with similar objectives. E-mail of EFN-USA: nuc-us@ecolo.org Web site of EFN-USA: http://www.ecolo.org (click on the US flag) EFN-JAPAN is the Japanese branch of EFN E-mail : nuc-jp@ecolo.org Web : http://www.ecolo.org (click on the Japanese flag) Thank you for supporting clean nuclear energy ! ________________________________ ROUGH MACHINE-BASED ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF COMBY REPORTS IN FRENCH BELOW COPY OF MESSAGE OF 22 OCTOBER 2002: Madam, Sir, dear friends, We inform you that by judgment delivered on October 22, 2002, the court of criminal appeal of the Supreme court of appeal gave full satisfaction to Professor Pellerin by rejecting the appeal formed by Messrs No?l Mam?re (appointed of the Gironde) and Marc Tessier of the society France 2. This judgement followed upon the two preceding victories, in first authority and Court of Appeal, of Professor Pellerin, who attacked in slandering the society France 2 and Mr No?l Mam?re. The Court of Appeal of Paris had confirmed on October 3, 2001 the judgment of the Vert deputy of the Gironde, Mr. No?l Mam?re, for slandering towards Pr Pierre Pellerin, old directing of the Central Service of Protection against Radiation Ionizing (SCPRI). Mr. No?l Mam?re had made the following remarks at the time of an broadcast of France 2 "Everyone speaks" on October 23, 1999 about it, for one hour of great listening: "In 1986 the day of the catastrophe of Tchernobyl, there was a disaster character with the SCPRI which was called Mr Pellerin, who did not stop telling us that France was so strong, complex of Ast?rix, that the cloud of Tchernobyl had not crossed our borders". The Court of Appeal had confirmed, in a way even more precise than in first authority, than it is defamatory "to charge to Pr Pellerin to have, as a specialist in the radioactivity, given, with full knowledge of the facts of even untrue erroneous information as for a serious problem such as the catastrophe of Tchernobyl..." ___________________________ Below, for memory, copy of our message of Oct. 10, 2001 on this subject: (the judgement in Call is now confirmed by the Supreme court of appeal) (...) Pr Pellerin always said the truth, did not never lie and, quite to the contrary, conducted himself in an exemplary way, under conditions then difficult (extra work of important work, intense media pressure, staff shortage because of the "bridges" of May...), by informing French very quickly by several press releases as of May 1, 1986, of the passage of the cloud of Tchernobyl on "the whole of the territory" (cf the article published by Lib?ration on 2 May 1986 reporting the remarks of Pr Pellerin), and by publishing then regularly figures and cards of contamination of the territory day by day, while specifying that, taking into account the levels of contamination, they did not present a danger to the public health. Professor Pellerin in addition was the first scientist in the world to publish and make public the isotopic composition of the cloud of Tchernobyl, before any other country. The Court adds, concerning the defamatory remarks held by Mr. No?l Mam?re, that "the peremptory character of its assertions and the pejorative characteristics (...) rev?lent at prevented lack of moderation in the matter", which prohibits to him to use the excuse of the good faith. The judgment in first authority of Mr. No?l Mam?re, like that of Marc Tessier directing of France 2, to pay 10.000 F (either 1524 Euros) of fine each one and 50.000 F (or 7.622 Euros) of damages jointly with Pr Pellerin, is thus maintained by the Court of Appeal. Condemned will have moreover to publish, with their expenses, their judgment in newspapers chosen by Pr Pellerin. To know all the details of this business, and to understand that in connection with Tchernobyl, as opposed to what has been repeated often and wrongly by certain antinuclear organizations and certain media, it is not the French authorities (in fact the SCPRI and the Pr Pellerin) which lied in connection with Tchernobyl, but certain media and certain personalities or antinuclear organizations, you can refer to the following documents: - official statement reporting the result of the lawsuit in first authority (message AEPN of October 13, 2000 reproduced below) - report of the lawsuit of No?l Mam?re in first authority on September 6, 2000 (message AEPN of September 14, 2000 reproduced below) - file fr.mensonge_tchernobyl.doc: explanations on the "lie of tchernobyl". In short, they are certain media and certain antinuclear organizations which lied, and not Pr Pellerin. http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_french/fr.mensonge_tchernobyl.doc - file fr.mensonge_tcherno.libe.jpg (newspaper cuttings of the newspaper Release of May 2, and May 12, 1986). One sees clearly in the edition of May 2 that Pr Pellerin announced (its remarks being taken again and quoted by Lib?ration) the arrival of the cloud on "the whole of the territory" (the cloud thus did not stop at the borders as one would like to make him say a posteriori) and than the media only speak about "radioactive lie" as from May 12, suddenly denying the existence of the remarks and the former press releases (however published by the same newspapers a few days before) held until there by Pr Pellerin. http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_french/fr.mensonge_tcherno.libe.j pg The honor of an honest man who did his work of sound better, courageously in an exemplary way and which with many recoveries, in an unjust way, has been calumniated for 15 years by certain antinuclear associations, is thus rehabilitated. Well cordially, Bruno Comby President of the AEPN ___________________________ Source: Pr Pierre Pellerin/and dispatches AFP of October 3, 2001 For memory, message AEPN sent on 13 October 2000 gave a report on the result of the lawsuit in 1st authority: Dear friends of the ecological nuclear power, In connection with famous myth of the "cloud of Tchernobyl which would have stopped at the borders", expression invented by the media and skilfully hawked by certain antinuclear organizations or being independent since 1986, we inform you that, in accordance with the complaint made by Pr PELLERIN, former director of the Central Service of Protection Against Radiation Ionizing (SCPRI) at the time of the Tchernobyl accident, now reprocessed, against NOEL MAMERE, European deputy ecologist (antinuclear), relating to the remarks made by NOEL MAMERE in an statement by France 2 entitled "EVERYONE SPEAKS" at the end of 1999 about IT: "Still a few weeks ago, there are mushrooms with cesium which entered to France as the result of Tchernobyl, me, I presented the 13 hour old newspaper into 86 the day of the catastrophe of Tchernobyl, there was a disaster character with the SCPRI which was called Mr Pellerin, who did not stop telling us that France was so strong, complex of Ast?rix, that the cloud of Tchernobyl had not crossed our borders." The Court (in fact 17 2nd correctional room of the Court of Bankruptcy of Paris) considers, by judgement of October 11, 2000, that the remarks quoted above having been held by NOEL MAMERE on France 2 to one hour of great listening, is quite defamatory and constitutes "the allegation of a precise fact which carries incontestably reached to the honor and the consideration of that to which to which it is charged" and condemns in consequence Mr No?l MAMERE as well as the company FRANCE 2 to 10.000 F of fine each one and to pour jointly 50.000 F of damages and 10.000 F of costs of proceedings to Pr PELLERIN. The Court refused the benefit of the good faith as well with NOEL MAMERE as in FRANCE 2 and thus entirely gives reason to Professor PELLERIN which, as opposed to what NOEL MAMERE with television at one hour of great listening affirmed, said only the truth, never lied to the French people concerning the passage in France of the cloud of Tchernobyl, and in particular never said that the cloud would have stopped at the borders. The judges, having studied in detail the whole of the file, confirm as well as the "lie of Tchernobyl" is not a lie of Pr PELLERIN or French authorities of the time, but well, as that arises clearly from the file and the many press releases sent to the press (and having been published) by Professor PELLERIN as of April 30, 1986, a fictitious lie, a simple myth, invented and hawked by the media in search of sensational information (FRANCE 2 is besides in fact condemned as well as NOEL MAMERE in this business). The Court underlines on the contrary which "the scientific official statements that the civil part - i.e. Pr PELLERIN - had addressed periodically to the press as of the advertisement of the accident, testify, while underlining its inoffensive character, of the rise in the radioactivity..." Professor PELLERIN NEVER lied to French or to the media in connection with TCHERNOBYL and NEVER said that the cloud it would be stopped at the French borders. They are the media and certain antinuclear groups which lied by inventing a lie which NEVER existed, then by allotting A posteriori the paternity of this so-called lie to the Pr PELLERIN which however had said and published exactly the opposite of what some would like to make him say today. Professor PELLERIN, in the days which followed the accident of Tchernobyl, on the contrary, did his work extremely well. Within sight of the successive press releases that he published in the days following the accident, it ALWAYS said the truth, as a scientist must do. Had intervened like witnesses at the side of NOEL MAMERE to support the thesis of the "lie of TCHERNOBYL" against Professor Pellerin: Michele RIVASI, Corinne LEPAGE, Monique SENE, Maryse ARDITI...: their testimonys do not have seems it not convinced the judges. Through NOEL MAMERE, it is thus more or less the whole of the "ANTI-nuclear lobby", in any case some of its protagonists, who see themselves repudiated in this business. When will one say finally ALL the truth to French on this supposed "lie of the cloud which stops at the borders"? The defamatory remarks of NOEL MAMERE were made during one hour of great listening on large television networks, with no one being able to answer or react on the plate of television. That will have marked the spirits of a million television viewers. Nearly one year later, it is now proven that the remarks made were defamatory, but how will it be known to the million French having been disinformed during this broadcast? For the moment, to my knowledge, the judgment of NOEL MAMERE was not the object, October 12, of a small item in an interior page of Figaro: well few things beside the million people having heard to television the defamatory remarks of NOEL MAMERE. There remains still well work to be made for saying and letting know with French ALL the truth about the accident of Tchernobyl... and to put an end to the myths, lies, and distort information which is associated there. With my best greetings, Bruno Comby President of the AEPN ___________________________ For memory, our preceding message telling more in detail the lawsuit of No?l Mam?re by Professor Pellerin (message of September 16, 2000): Dear friends of the ecological nuclear power, The lawsuit in slandering brought by Professor Pierre Pellerin (former director of the SCPRI - Central Service of Protection Against Radiation Ionizing, renamed since OPRI - Office of Protection against Ionizing Radiations) with Mr No?l Mam?re (appointed European green) has taken place Wednesday September 6 of 14h00 with 21h00 approximately (9 hours of debates with no stop at all!) within the framework of the XVII 2nd correctional room of the TGI of Paris. A dozen witnesses intervened, with, of course, lawyers, prosecutor, the judge and his 2 assessors, as well as about thirty people in the room, of which approximately about fifteen tendency antinuclear on one side of the room, and about fifteen neutral people (including 5 of the AEPN) or rather pro-nuclear, other, arrivals to attend the lawsuit. This lawsuit results from the broadcast of France 2 "Everyone speaks about it" animated by Thierry Ardisson and having been diffused by FRANCE 2 on 23-24 October 1999, broadcast in which Mr No?l Mam?re, in connection with the accident of Tchernobyl and of Pr Pierre Pellerin, held the following remarks: "still a few weeks ago of that, there are mushrooms with cesium who entered to France and it is the result of Tchernobyl, me, I presented the 13 hour old newspaper in 86 the day of the catastrophe of Tchernobyl, it y a disaster character with the SCPRI had which was called Mr Pellerin, who did not stop telling us that France was so strong, complex of Ast?rix, that the cloud of Tchernobyl had not crossed our borders ". Mr No?l Mam?re, as well as the witnesses who he used for his defense, including inter alia: Mesdames Michele Rivasi, Maryse Arditi, Monique Senna, Corinne Lepage, and Mr Jean-Michel Jacquemin, and through them the antinuclear lobby, have seemed to have tried to transform this simple lawsuit in slandering into a lawsuit about nuclear power, from Tchernobyl's lack of transparency and various other extremely interesting peripheral questions, but completely off-subject. However, in my opinion, that did not mislead anybody and, obviously, they are on the defensive. They did not have besides convened the press: there was to my knowledge no journalist in the room. Even if returned judgement must be awaited on next 11 October to know the result, the facts seem to me rather clearly in favour of Pr Pierre Pellerin, who seems well, within sight of testimonys and parts presented (in particular successive press releases, and press clippings) to have always known as the truth on the accident of Tchernobyl and the passage of the radioactive cloud in France, with knowing: that the cloud arrived on the south of France initially (what it announced in a press release of the 30 April 1986 published by several newspapers on May 2, 1986 - on May 1 being a holiday), then that the cloud flew over the following day on variable levels of intensity over French territory, but without levels of radioactivity concerned to be dangerous for public health, what was confirmed by the eminent experts who came came to testify (of which Professor Tubiana and several other doctors as specialists in protection against radiation). As soon as the accident of Tchernobyl was known, Professor Pellerin has worked like a navvy at the end of April 1986 and during the first days of May 1986, quasimment day and night, under difficult conditions, sleeping even at the SCPRI offices, to be able to follow the situation to nearest, and to make face with a reduced team and correspondents often absent (because of double-bridge of 1st and 8 May 1986 falling one Thursday) with an addition from important work such an amount of at the scientific level, to follow the passage of the cloud and to evaluate the best evolution of the situation, by taking stock regularly with his foreign counterparts, that in the area of communication (several tens press releases having been sent in a few days). Pr Pellerin was the first French scientist to announce that the radioactive cloud had arrived well on France, and he communicated (official statement to the press) as soon as he had confirmation of first measurements which came to increase in the south of France on April 30, 1986 (well before it ?? GSIEN whose President is Monique S?n?, as well as the journalists criticize his attitude and so-called lie and lack of transparency, in particular at the time of a debate TV on TF1 on May 10 1986). Pr Pellerin has regularly communicated throughout this first week afterwards the accident of figures detailed of contamination of the territory (averages and MAXIMUM by department) as the data were specified, in tens of successive press releases at the beginning of May 1986 (official statements having been largely begun again by AFP as from April 30, and published in various newspapers to leave from May 2, 1986). Pr PELLERIN was even the first in the world, as of the end April 1986 (before any other country in the world) to know and reveal to the public the detail of isotopic composition of the radioactive cloud of Tchernobyl (Iodine 131, Cesium 134 and 137 etc.), thanks to the spectrometric film analysis of detection and of measurements of radioactive particles which he had immediately made on planes of Air France in departure for the Eastern European countries on April 28 incoming to Paris in the evening. Professor PELLERIN NEVER said that the cloud would have stopped with borders (these remarks which are fictitiously allotted to him by the many press articles as from May 10, 1986 were in fact pure invention of the journalists). Professor PELLERIN even said and published in his official statements continuously, as of the end April, with many recoveries, the exact opposite: THE RADIOACTIVE CLOUD IS WELL MASTER KEY ON FRANCE. The "lie of Pr Pellerin concerning the radioactive cloud which would be stopped at the borders ", and the remarks which are often allotted to him, wrongly, matter who are often introduced (by the antinuclear lobby), is the result of the lack of transparency of the nuclear "lobby", would not be thus that a myth based on... wind (or a politico-media exploitation a posteriori with the accident of Tchernobyl). This myth was largely hawked and amplified since by the antinuclear movements, associations saying independent, and other independent journalists or lecturers badly in need of beautiful stories to be told and of headlines with feeling. The pleading of Professor Pellerin's lawyer was very good, like testimonys in its favour (of which Pr Tubiana, Mr Jacques Pradel, former President of the French Company of Protection against Radiation, Mr R?my Carle, etc.) explaining how a man, scientist of great value, today reprocessed and 77 years old, who always said the truth, and only truth on the matter of Tchernobyl, while at the time admirably doing his work in difficult conditions and without making the least error, who was held with to have of reserve by its functions and could not be expressed of this fact during years, then preferred to keep silent itself during still several years for not to amplify the polemic, cannot about it see its honor today any more ridiculed, its reversed and deformed remarks, and to be continuously the object of calumnies since more than 14 years. After not having reacted during years, Professor PELLERIN decided to continue from now on, in a correctional and systematic way, all those, journalists, associations, etc, who will continue to calumniate it and with to tell anything about it. The lawyer of Mr No?l Mam?re pled (fairly well, in my opinion) in calling upon the fact that remarks made by No?l Mam?re on France 2 were not not a slandering, but a simple humorous joke in an program of entertainment. In other words, to defame quiet, it would be enough of going to express itself in the entertainment programs on TV, like there is not practically that that and that they are more looked at emissions, it would be quite easy! The lawyer of France 2 was in the same direction, while adding (feeling perhaps what the exit of the lawsuit isn't guaranteed favorable for No?l Mam?re?) that it is not the role of the director of the publication of France 2 to only censure remarks of a European deputy on a technical and discussed subject in one entertainment program. It also underlines that in addition to the fact that it is not the role of France 2, the reactions easily are imagined (policies, green and popular for example), rightly, if France 2 allowed itself to censure such remarks, particularly on behalf of a deputy European. France 2 cannot obviously make a thorough scientific investigation on each detail and each adjective used ("sinister character"), nor on life of each person quoted in its programs. It seems to to me that it has enough largely reason, even if that can be discussed (France 2 could be culprit by omission of checking of disseminated information, the program not having not diffused?? on line, while being in good faith). Some quotations of No?l Mam?re for his defense: - "I used" the sinister "word within the meaning of worrying" - "a nuclear catastrophe is irreversible" - "they (the nuclear lobby and particularly Pr Pellerin) did everything to minimize the consequences (accident of Tchernobyl)" - "lack of transparency" - "that did not change since" - "a nuclear explosion brings closer Kiev and Paris" of R?my Carle: - "as a director of the SCPRI, Pr Pellerin had a constant concern of nuclear safety and will to impose multiple precautions on nuclear power station operators. At the time when I was an assistant general manager of EDF, I feared it. We regarded it even as excessive because it forced us to take precautions. There is for example what is called always in the power stations the "Pellerins cans". - "If the French power stations are among surest in the world, we must say it is in part because of Pr Pellerin ". of Monique Senna: - "it is necessary to explain all. The public is perfectly suited to include/understand all." (It would be liked that she also tells that to some of her friends or to antinuclear associations which think that it would be necessary to prohibit the AEPN from expressing itself). The logical verdict (and my forecast) are: Guilty No?l Mam?re (like A asked the prosecutor)... The judgement will be given on October 11 next. To follow... Well cordially, Bruno Comby President of the AEPN ========================== ORIGINAL FRENCH REPORTS: COPY OF MESSAGE OF 22 OCTOBER 2002 : Madame, Monsieur, chers amis, Nous vous informons que par arr?t rendu le 22 octobre 2002, la chambre criminelle de la Cour de Cassation a donn? pleine satisfaction au Professeur Pellerin en rejetant le pourvoi form? par Messieurs Noel Mam?re (d?put? de la Gironde) et Marc Tessier de la soci?t? France 2. Ce jugement fait suite aux deux pr?c?dentes victoires, en premi?re instance et en Cour d'appel, du Professeur Pellerin, qui attaquait en diffamation la soci?t? France 2 et Monsieur Noel Mam?re. La Cour d'Appel de Paris avait confirm? le 3 octobre 2001 la condamnation du d?put? Vert de la Gironde, Mr Noel Mam?re, pour diffamation envers le Pr Pierre Pellerin, ancien directeur du Service Central de Protection contre les Rayonnements Ionisants (SCPRI). Mr Noel Mam?re avait tenu les propos suivants lors d'une ?mission de France 2 "Tout le monde en parle" le 23 octobre 1999, ? une heure de grande ?coute : "en 86 le jour de la catastrophe de Tchernobyl, il y avait un sinistre personnage au SCPRI qui s'appelait Monsieur Pellerin, qui n'arr?tait pas de nous raconter que la France ?tait tellement forte, complexe d'Ast?rix, que le nuage de Tchernobyl n'avait pas franchi nos fronti?res". La Cour d'appel avait confirm?, de mani?re encore plus pr?cise qu'en premi?re instance, qu'il est diffamatoire d' "imputer au Pr Pellerin d'avoir, en tant que sp?cialiste de la radioactivit?, donn?, en connaissance de cause des informations erronn?es voire mensong?res quant ? un probl?me grave tel que la catastrophe de Tchernobyl..." ___________________________ Ci-dessous, pour m?moire, copie de notre message du 10 oct 2001 ? ce sujet : (le jugement en Appel est maintenant confirm? par la Cour de Cassation) (...) Le Pr Pellerin a toujours dit la v?rit?, n'a jamais menti et, bien au contraire, a fait son m?tier de mani?re exemplaire, dans des conditions alors difficiles (surcro?t de travail important, pression m?diatique intense, manque de personnel en raison des "ponts" du mois de mai...), en informant les fran?ais tr?s rapidement par plusieurs communiqu?s de presse d?s le 1er mai 1986, du passage du nuage de Tchernobyl sur "l'ensemble du territoire" (cf l'article publi? par Lib?ration le 2 mai 1986 relatant les propos du Pr Pellerin), et en publiant ensuite r?guli?rement des chiffres et des cartes de contamination du territoire fran?ais de jour en jour, tout en pr?cisant que, compte tenu des niveaux de contamination, cela ne pr?sentait pas de danger pour la sant? publique. Le professeur Pellerin a par ailleurs ?t? le premier scientifique dans le monde ? publier et ? rendre public la composition isotopique du nuage de Tchernobyl, avant tout autre pays. La Cour ajoute, concernant les propos diffamatoires tenus par Mr Noel Mam?re, que "le caract?re p?remptoire de ses affirmations et les caract?ristiques p?joratives (...) rev?lent chez le pr?venu un manque de mod?ration dans le propos", qui lui interdit de b?n?ficier de l'excuse de la bonne foi. La condamnation en premi?re instance de Mr Noel Mam?re, comme celle de Marc Tessier directeur de France 2, ? payer 10.000 F (soit 1524 Euros) d'amende chacun et 50.000 F (soit 7.622 Euros) de dommages et int?r?ts solidairement au Pr Pellerin, est donc maintenue par la Cour d'Appel. Les condamn?s devront en outre faire publier ? leurs frais leur condamnation dans des journaux choisis par le Pr Pellerin. Pour conna?tre tous les d?tails de cette affaire, et comprendre qu'? propos de Tchernobyl, contrairement ? ce que r?p?tent souvent et ? tort certaines organisations anti-nucl?aires et certains m?dias, ce ne sont pas les autorit?s fran?aises (en l'occurrence le SCPRI et le Pr Pellerin) qui ont menti ? propos de Tchernobyl, mais certains m?dias et certaines personnalit?s ou organisations anti-nucl?aires, vous pouvez vous r?f?rer aux documents suivants : - communiqu? faisant ?tat du r?sultat du proc?s en premi?re instance (message AEPN du 13 octobre 2000 reproduit ci-dessous) - compte-rendu du proc?s de Noel Mam?re en 1?re instance le 6 septembre 2000 (message AEPN du 14 sept 2000 reproduit ci-dessous) - fichier fr.mensonge_tchernobyl.doc : explications sur le "mensonge de tchernobyl". En r?sum?, ce sont certains medias et certaines organisations anti-nucl?aires qui ont menti, et non le Pr Pellerin. http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_french/fr.mensonge_tchernobyl.doc - fichier fr.mensonge_tcherno.libe.jpg (coupures de presse du journal Lib?ration des 2 et 12 mai 1986). On voit clairement dans l'?dition du 2 mai que le Pr Pellerin a annonc? (ses propos ?tant repris et cit?s par Lib?ration) l'arriv?e du nuage sur "l'ensemble du territoire" (le nuage ne s'est donc pas arr?t? aux fronti?res comme on voudrait le lui faire dire a posteriori) et que les m?dias parlent de "mensonge radioactif" ? partir du 12 mai seulement, niant subitement l'existence des propos et des communiqu?s de presse ant?rieurs (pourtant publi?s par les m?mes journaux quelques jours auparavant) tenus jusque l? par le Pr Pellerin. http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_french/fr.mensonge_tcherno.libe.j pg L'honneur d'un honn?te homme qui a fait son travail de son mieux, courageusement, dans des conditions difficiles, d'une mani?re exemplaire et qui a ?t? ? de nombreuses reprises, de mani?re injuste, calomni? depuis 15 ans par certaines associations anti-nucl?aires, est ainsi r?habilit?. Bien cordialement, Bruno Comby Pr?sident de l'AEPN Source : Pr Pierre Pellerin / et d?p?che AFP du 3 octobre 2001 ____________ http://www.ecolo.org ______________________ Pour m?moire, message AEPN diffus? le 13 octobre 2000 faisant ?tat du r?sultat du proc?s en 1?re instance : Chers amis du nucl?aire ?cologique, A propos du fameux mythe du "nuage de Tchernobyl qui se serait arr?t? aux fronti?res", expression invent?e par les m?dia et habilement colport?e par certaines organisations anti-nucl?aires ou se disant ind?pendantes depuis 1986, nous vous informons que, faisant suite ? la plainte d?pos?e par le Pr PELLERIN, ancien directeur du Service Central de Protection Contre les Rayonnements Ionisants (SCPRI) lors de l'accident de Tchernobyl, maintenant retrait?, contre NOEL MAMERE, d?put? europ?en ?cologiste (anti-nucl?aire), concernant les propos tenus par NOEL MAMERE dans une ?mission de France 2 intitul?e "TOUT LE MONDE EN PARLE" fin 1999 : "Il y a encore quelques semaines de cela, il y a des champignons au c?sium qui sont entr?s en France et c'est le r?sultat de Tchernobyl, moi, je pr?sentais le journal de 13 heures en 86 le jour de la catastrophe de Tchernobyl, il y avait un sinistre personnage au SCPRI qui s'appelait Monsieur Pellerin, qui n'arr?tait pas de nous raconter que la France ?tait tellement forte, complexe d'Ast?rix, que le nuage de Tchernobyl n'avait pas franchi nos fronti?res". Le Tribunal (en l'occurrence la 17 ?me chambre correctionnelle du Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) consid?re, par jugement du 11 octobre 2000, que les propos cit?s ci-dessus ayant ?t? tenus par Noel MAMERE sur France 2 ? une heure de grande ?coute, sont bien diffamatoires et constituent "l'all?gation d'un fait pr?cis qui porte incontestablement atteinte ? l'honneur et ? la consid?ration de celui auquel auquel il est imput?" et condamne en cons?quence Monsieur Noel MAMERE ainsi que la soci?t? FRANCE 2 ? 10 000 F d'amende chacun et ? verser solidairement 50.000 F de dommages-int?r?ts et 10.000 F de frais de proc?dure au Pr PELLERIN. Le Tribunal a refus? le b?n?fice de la bonne foi tant ? Noel MAMERE qu'? FRANCE 2 et donne ainsi enti?rement raison au Professeur PELLERIN lequel, contrairement ? ce qu'affirmait Noel MAMERE ? la t?l?vision ? une heure de grande ?coute, n'a dit que la v?rit?, n'a jamais menti aux fran?ais concernant le passage en France du nuage de Tchernobyl, et en particulier n'a jamais dit que le nuage se serait arr?t? aux fronti?res. Les juges, ayant ?tudi? en d?tail l'ensemble du dossier, confirment ainsi que le "mensonge de Tchernobyl" n'est PAS un mensonge du Pr PELLERIN ou des autorit?s fran?aises de l'?poque, mais bien, comme cela ressort clairement du dossier et des nombreux communiqu?s de presse envoy?s ? la presse (et ayant ?t? publi?s) par le Professeur PELLERIN d?s le 30 avril 1986, un mensonge fictif, un simple mythe, invent? et colport? par les m?dia en qu?te d'informations sensationnelles (FRANCE 2 est d'ailleurs en l'occurrence condamn?e au m?me titre que NOEL MAMERE dans cette affaire). Le Tribunal souligne au contraire que "les communiqu?s scientifiques que la partie civile - c'est-?-dire le Pr PELLERIN - avait adress?s p?riodiquement ? la presse d?s l'annonce de l'accident, t?moignent, tout en soulignant son caract?re inoffensif, de l'?l?vation de la radioactivit?..." Le Professeur PELLERIN n'a JAMAIS menti aux fran?ais ou aux media ? propos de TCHERNOBYL et n'a JAMAIS dit que le nuage ce serait arr?t? aux fronti?res fran?aises. Ce sont les media et certains groupes anti-nucl?aires qui ont menti en inventant un mensonge qui n'a JAMAIS exist?, puis en attribuant A POSTERIORI la paternit? de ce soi-disant mensonge au Pr PELLERIN qui avait pourtant dit et publi? exactement le contraire de ce que certains voudraient lui faire dire aujourd'hui. Le professeur PELLERIN, dans les jours qui ont suivi l'accident de Tchernobyl, a au contraire fort bien fait son travail. Au vu des communiqu?s de presse successifs qu'il a publi?s dans les jours suivant l'accident, il a TOUJOURS dit la v?rit?, comme un scientifique se doit de le faire. Etaient intervenus comme t?moins aux c?t? de NOEL MAMERE pour soutenir la th?se du "mensonge de TCHERNOBYL" contre le Professeur Pellerin : Mich?le RIVASI, Corinne LEPAGE, Monique SENE, Maryse ARDITI... : leurs t?moignages n'ont semble-t-il pas convaincu les juges. A travers NOEL MAMERE, c'est ainsi plus ou moins l'ensemble du "lobby ANTI-nucl?aire", en tout cas certains de ses protagonistes, qui se voient d?savou?s dans cette affaire. Quand dira-t-on enfin TOUTE la v?rit? aux fran?ais sur ce suppos? "mensonge du nuage qui s'arr?te aux fronti?res" ? Les propos diffamatoires de Noel MAMERE ont ?t? tenus ? une heure de grande ?coute sur une grande chaine de t?l?vision, sans que personne n'ait pu r?pondre ou r?agir sur le plateau de t?l?vision. Cela aura marqu? les esprits de millions de t?l?spectateurs. Pr?s d'un an plus tard, il est maintenant av?r? que les propos tenus ?taient diffamatoires, mais qui le fera savoir aux millions de fran?ais ayant ?t? d?sinform?s lors de cette ?mission ? Pour l'instant, ? ma connaissance, la condamnation de Noel MAMERE n'a fait l'objet, le 12 octobre, que d'une petite manchette dans une page int?rieure du Figaro : bien peu de choses ? c?t? des millions de personnes ayant entendu ? la t?l?vision les propos diffamatoires de Noel MAMERE. Il reste encore bien du travail ? faire pour dire et faire savoir aux fran?ais TOUTE la v?rit? sur l'accident de Tchernobyl... et pour faire cesser les mythes, mensonges, et fausses informations qui y sont associ?es. Avec mes meilleures salutations, Bruno Comby Pr?sident de l'AEPN _________________ http://www.ecolo.org _________________ Pour m?moire, notre message pr?c?dent racontant plus en d?tail le proc?s de Noel Mam?re contre le Professeur Pellerin (message du 16 septembre 2000) : _______________________________ Chers amis du nucl?aire ?cologique, Le proc?s en diffamation intent? par le Professeur Pierre Pellerin (ancien directeur du SCPRI - Service Central de Protection Contre le Rayonnements Ionisants, rebaptis? depuis OPRI - Office de Protection contre les Rayonnements Ionisants) ? Monsieur Noel Mam?re (d?put? europ?en vert) a eu lieu le mercredi 6 septembre de 14h00 ? 21h00 environ (9 heures de d?bats non stop en tout!) dans le cadre de la XVII ?me chambre correctionnelle du TGI de Paris. Une douzaine de t?moins intervenaient, avec, bien s?r, les avocats, le procureur, le juge et ses 2 assesseurs, ainsi qu'une trentaine de personnes dans la salle, dont environ une quinzaine de tendance antinucl?aire d'un c?t? de la salle, et une quinzaine de personnes neutres (dont 5 de l'AEPN) ou plut?t pro-nucl?aires, de l'autre, venues assister au proc?s. Ce proc?s r?sulte de l'?mission de France 2 "Tout le monde en parle" anim?e par Thierry Ardisson et ayant ?t? diffus?e par FRANCE 2 les 23 -24 octobre 1999, ?mission dans laquelle Monsieur Noel Mam?re, ? propos de l'accident de Tchernobyl et du Pr Pierre Pellerin, a tenu les propos suivants : "Il y a encore quelques semaines de cela, il y a des champignons au c?sium qui sont entr?s en France et c'est le r?sultat de Tchernobyl, moi, je pr?sentais le journal de 13 heures en 86 le jour de la catastrophe de Tchernobyl, il y avait un sinistre personnage au SCPRI qui s'appelait Monsieur Pellerin, qui n'arr?tait pas de nous raconter que la France ?tait tellement forte, complexe d'Ast?rix, que le nuage de Tchernobyl n'avait pas franchi nos fronti?res". Monsieur Noel Mam?re, ainsi que les t?moins qu'il a fait intervenir pour sa d?fense, dont entre autres : mesdames Mich?le Rivasi, Maryse Arditi, Monique S?n?, Corinne Lepage, et monsieur Jean-Michel Jacquemin, et ? travers eux le lobby anti-nucl?aire, ont semble-t-il essay? de transformer ce simple proc?s en diffamation en proc?s du nucl?aire, de Tchernobyl, du manque de transparence et diverses autres questions p?riph?riques fort int?ressantes, mais totalement hors-sujet. Toutefois, ? mon avis, cela ne trompait personne et, manifestement, ils sont sur la d?fensive. Ils n'avaient d'ailleurs pas convoqu? la presse : il n'y avait ? ma connaissance aucun journaliste dans la salle. M?me s'il faudra attendre le rendu du jugement le 11 octobre prochain pour en savoir le r?sultat, les faits me semblent assez clairement en faveur du Pr Pierre Pellerin, qui semble bien, au vu des t?moignages et des pi?ces pr?sent?es (notamment les communiqu?s de presse successifs, et coupures de presse) avoir toujours dit la v?rit? sur l'accident de Tchernobyl et le passage du nuage radioactif en France, ? savoir : que le nuage est arriv? sur le sud de la France d'abord (ce qu'il a annonc? dans un communiqu? de presse du 30 avril 1986 publi? par plusieurs journaux le 2 mai 1986 - le 1er mai ?tant f?ri?), puis que ce nuage a survol? le lendemain ? des niveaux d'intensit? variables l'ensemble du territoire fran?ais, mais sans que les niveaux de radioactivit? concern?s soient dangereux pour la sant? publique, ce qui a ?t? confirm? par d'?minents experts venus t?moigner (dont le Professeur Tubiana et plusieurs autres m?decins ainsi que sp?cialistes de radioprotection). D?s que l'accident de Tchernobyl a ?t? connu, le Professeur Pellerin a travaill? d'arrache-pied fin avril 1986 et durant les premiers jours de mai 1986, quasimment jour et nuit, dans des conditions difficiles, dormant m?me sur place au SCPRI, pour pouvoir suivre la situation au plus pr?s, et faire face avec une ?quipe r?duite et des correspondants souvent absents (en raison du double-pont des 1er et 8 mai 1986 tombant un jeudi) ? un surcro?t de travail important tant au niveau scientifique, pour suivre le passage du nuage et ?valuer au mieux l'?volution de la situation, en faisant le point r?guli?rement avec ses homologues ?trangers, que sur le plan de la communication (plusieurs dizaines de communiqu?s de presse ayant ?t? envoy?s en quelques jours). Le Pr Pellerin a ?t? le premier scientifique fran?ais ? annoncer que le nuage radioactif ?tait bien arriv? sur la France, ce qu'il a communiqu? (communiqu? de presse) d?s qu'il a eu confirmation des premi?res mesures qui venaient d'augmenter dans le sud de la France le 30 avril 1986 (bien avant que le GSIEN dont la Pr?sidente est Monique S?n?, ainsi que les journalistes ne critiquent son attitude et son soi-disant mensonge et manque de transparence, notamment ? l'occasion d'un d?bat TV sur TF1 le 10 mai 1986). Le Pr Pellerin a r?guli?rement communiqu? tout au long de cette premi?re semaine apr?s l'accident des chiffres d?taill?s de contamination du territoire (moyennes et MAXI par d?partement) au fur et ? mesure que les donn?es se pr?cisaient, dans des dizaines de communiqu?s de presse successifs d?but mai 1986 (communiqu?s ayant ?t? largement repris par l'AFP ? partir du 30 avril, et publi?s dans divers journaux ? partir du 2 mai 86). Le Pr PELLERIN a m?me ?t? le premier au monde, d?s la fin avril 1986 (avant tout autre pays dans le monde) ? conna?tre et ? r?v?ler au public le d?tail de la composition isotopique du nuage radioactif de Tchernobyl (Iode 131, C?sium 134 et 137 etc.), gr?ce ? l'analyse spectrom?trique de films de d?tection et de pr?levements de particules radioactives qu'il avait imm?diatement fait poser sur des avions d'Air France en partance pour les pays de l'Est le 28 avril revenus ? Paris le soir m?me. Le Professeur PELLERIN n'a JAMAIS dit que le nuage se serait arr?t? aux fronti?res (ces propos qui lui sont fictivement attribu?s par de nombreux articles de presse ? partir du 10 mai 1986 seraient en fait une pure invention des journalistes). Le Professeur PELLERIN a m?me dit et publi? dans ses communiqu?s continuellement, d?s la fin avril, ? de nombreuses reprises, exactement le contraire : LE NUAGE RADIOACTIF EST BIEN PASSE SUR LA FRANCE. Le "mensonge du Pr Pellerin ? propos du nuage radioactif qui se serait arr?t? aux fronti?res", et les propos qui lui sont souvent attribu?s, ? tort, propos qui sont souvent pr?sent?s (par le lobby anti-nucl?aire), comme ?tant le r?sultat du manque de transparence du "lobby" nucl?aire, ne seraient donc qu'un mythe bas? sur... du vent (ou une exploitation politico-m?diatique post?rieure ? l'accident de Tchernobyl). Ce mythe a ?t? largement colport? et amplifi? depuis par les mouvements anti-nucl?aires, associations se disant ind?pendantes, et autres journalistes ou conf?renciers ind?pendants en mal de belles histoires ? raconter et de titres ? sensation. La plaidoirie de l'avocat du Professeur Pellerin ?tait tr?s bonne, ainsi que les t?moignages en sa faveur (dont le Pr Tubiana, monsieur Jacques Pradel, ancien Pr?sident de la soci?t? Fran?aise de Radioprotection, monsieur R?my Carle, etc.) expliquant comment un homme, scientifique de grande valeur, aujourd'hui retrait? et ?g? de 77 ans, qui a toujours dit la v?rit?, et rien que la v?rit? ? propos de Tchernobyl, en faisant ? l'?poque admirablement son travail dans des conditions difficiles et sans faire la moindre erreur, qui a ?t? tenu au devoir de r?serve par ses fonctions et n'a pas pu s'exprimer de ce fait pendant des ann?es, puis a pr?f?r? se taire pendant encore plusieurs ann?es pour ne pas amplifier la pol?mique, n'en peut plus aujourd'hui de voir son honneur bafou?, ses propos invers?s et d?form?s, et d'?tre continuellement l'objet de calomnies depuis plus de 14 ans. Apr?s n'avoir pas r?agi pendant des ann?es, le Professeur PELLERIN a d?cid? de poursuivre d?sormais, en correctionnelle et de mani?re syst?matique, tous ceux, journalistes, associations, etc., qui continueront ? le calomnier et ? raconter n'importe quoi ? son sujet. L'avocat de monsieur Noel Mam?re a plaid? (moyennement bien, ? mon avis) en invoquant le fait que les propos tenus par Noel Mam?re sur France 2 n'?taient pas une diffamation, mais une simple boutade humoristique dans une ?mission de divertissement. Autrement dit, pour diffamer tranquille, il suffirait d'aller s'exprimer dans les ?missions de divertissement ? la TV, comme il n'y a pratiquement que cela et que ce sont les ?missions plus regard?es, ce serait bien facile ! L'avocate de France 2 a ?t? dans le m?me sens, en ajoutant (sentant peut-?tre que l'issue du proc?s n'est pas garantie favorable pour Noel Mam?re ?) que ce n'est pas le r?le du directeur de la publication de France 2 que de censurer les propos d'un d?put? europ?en sur un sujet technique et controvers? dans une ?mission de divertissement. Elle souligne ?galement qu'outre le fait que ce n'est pas le r?le de France 2, on imagine ais?ment les r?actions (politiques, vertes et populaires par exemple), ? juste titre, si France 2 se permettait de censurer de tels propos, particuli?rement de la part d'un d?put? europ?en. France 2 ne peut ?videmment pas faire une enqu?te scientifique approfondie sur chaque d?tail et chaque adjectif utilis? ("sinistre personnage"), ni sur la vie de chaque personne cit?e dans ses ?missions. Il me semble qu'elle a assez largement raison, m?me si cela peut se discuter (France 2 pourrait ?tre coupable par omission de v?rification des informations diffus?es, l'?mission n'ayant pas ?t? diffus?e en direct, tout en ?tant de bonne foi). Quelques citations de Noel Mam?re pour sa d?fense : - "J'ai utilis? le mot "sinistre" au sens d'inqui?tant" - "une catastrophe nucl?aire a un caract?re irr?versible" - "ils (le lobby nucl?aire et particuli?rement le Pr Pellerin) ont tout fait pour minimiser les cons?quences (de l'accident de Tchernobyl)" - "manque de transparence" - "cela n'a pas chang? depuis" - "une explosion nucl?aire rapproche Kiev et Paris" de R?my Carle : - "en tant que directeur du SCPRI, le Pr Pellerin avait un constant souci de la s?curit? nucl?aire et la volont? d'imposer de multiples pr?cautions aux exploitants nucl?aires. A l'?poque o? j'?tais directeur g?n?ral adjoint de l'EDF, je le redoutais. Nous le consid?rions m?me comme excessif parce qu'il nous imposait des pr?cautions ? prendre. Il y a par exemple ce qu'on appelle toujours dans les centrales les "bidons Pellerins". - "Si les centrales fran?aises sont parmi les plus s?res au monde, c'est en partie au Pr Pellerin que nous le devons". de Monique S?n? : - "il faut tout expliquer. Le public est parfaitement apte ? tout comprendre" (on aimerait qu'elle dise cela aussi ? certains de ses amis ou aux associations antinucl?aires qui pensent qu'il faudrait interdire ? l'AEPN de s'exprimer). Le verdict logique (et mon pronostic) est : Noel Mam?re coupable (comme l'a demand? le procureur)... Le jugement sera rendu le 11 octobre prochain. A suivre... Bien cordialement, Bruno Comby Pr?sident de l'AEPN From M.Schouwenburg at TNW.TUDelft.NL Thu Jun 23 10:35:59 2005 From: M.Schouwenburg at TNW.TUDelft.NL (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Thu Jun 23 10:38:38 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon discrimination with AP-2 Message-ID: <42BA746F.4030602@TNW.TUDelft.NL> Has anyone used the AP-2 in conjunction with the gross alpha counts from another instrument (e.g. a Ludlum 2929) in order to eliminate the contribution from radon - thereby coming up with a more realistic DAC fraction? If so, what exactly was your procedure? RM (Bob) Moore Health Physicist Waste Control Specialists LLC From Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com Thu Jun 23 13:49:06 2005 From: Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com (Flanigan, Floyd) Date: Thu Jun 23 13:49:53 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon discrimination with AP-2 Message-ID: <9B9410BB35BC3443BEA0369E880B0BA501323EE2@piex01.pi.nmcco.net> Bob, Contact the lead HP at Fernald in Ross, Ohio. We used them there for ratios but that has been years ago. They may have a procedure handy for you. Floyd W.Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Marcel Schouwenburg Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:36 AM To: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon discrimination with AP-2 Has anyone used the AP-2 in conjunction with the gross alpha counts from another instrument (e.g. a Ludlum 2929) in order to eliminate the contribution from radon - thereby coming up with a more realistic DAC fraction? If so, what exactly was your procedure? RM (Bob) Moore Health Physicist Waste Control Specialists LLC _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca Thu Jun 23 13:50:59 2005 From: jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca (Jaro) Date: Thu Jun 23 13:51:16 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Rich kids face higher risk of leukemia " Message-ID: http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=d9096228-4 a32-4c8c-a949-83fdd1f56b3a Rich kids face higher risk of leukemia Study by B.C. Cancer Agency. Work buttresses theory most recently discussed in British medical journals PAMELA FAYERMAN CanWest News Service, June 23, 2005 Children living in Canada's most affluent neighbourhoods have a higher risk of developing leukemia compared with those living in the poorest neighbourhoods, according to the largest Canadian study ever done on socio-economic status and childhood cancer risk factors. The study by B.C. Cancer Agency researchers, which will appear in the July issue of Epidemiology, looked at 5,240 cases of leukemia in children diagnosed between 1985 and 2001 in 10 provinces. Using provincial cancer registries, postal codes, 1996 census data and neighbourhood income averages from Statistics Canada, the researchers found the lower risk in the poorest neighbourhoods was restricted to children diagnosed with acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL), the most common and the most treatable type of leukemia. Children living in the poorest neighbourhoods across Canada had a 14-per-cent lower risk of developing ALL compared with children in the richest neighbourhoods. For the rarest subtypes of childhood leukemia (chronic or acute myeloid and acute nonlymphocytic), the risk was weaker and less precise. Researchers divided the population into five income classes, with each class representing about one-fifth of the population. The mean income of individuals living in the poorest neighbourhoods was $22,049, based on 1996 census data, while the mean income of individuals living in the most affluent neighbourhoods was more than double, at $50,284. Marilyn Borugian, the epidemiologist who was the lead investigator of the study, said in an interview that the work buttresses the theory most recently discussed in British medical journals that leukemia is more likely if there is an absence of exposure to various infections early in life. She said in the poorest, most crowded neighbourhoods, there may be more exposure to bacterial and viral infectious agents that may confer some protection on children. In a 2002 study in the British Journal of Cancer, California researchers showed delayed exposure to common infections may play a role in the development of leukemia. In that study, children in day cares had a lower incidence of leukemia, compared with children who had never attended a day care. "Such an association may be explained by the protective effect of early exposure to common infections among day-care attendees," Borugian and her co-authors say. Paul Rogers, head of pediatric oncology at B.C. Children's Hospital, said while the association between exposure to infections and the lowered risk of leukemia is increasingly being considered, "it remains unproven." About 1,285 children are diagnosed with cancer each year in Canada. Leukemia, which is the most common of childhood cancers, accounts for 26 per cent of new cancer cases. ALL is the most common subtype, but because of progress in treatment regimes, about 80 per cent of children are now cured. Vancouver Sun -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.11/26 - Release Date: 6/22/2005 From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jun 23 14:01:52 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu Jun 23 14:02:02 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Report on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNET)and Rare Isotope Accelerator In-Reply-To: <000901c57783$e3313080$c4f4e245@domainnotset.invalid> Message-ID: <20050623120152.93926.qmail@web54305.mail.yahoo.com> The use of military weapons requires a knowledge of intelligence of location and vulnerability. Our experiences in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. does not give me confidence. --- jjcohen@prodigy.net wrote: > John et al, > Whether it uses nuclear or conventional > technology, I still think the > RNEP is a dumb idea. I seriously doubt that the > technohustlers who > are pushing the concept have a clue as to a feasible > physical principle > on how it could work. All work on the RNEP will > likely be classified to > cover up the inevitable blundering and eventually > millions of taxpayer's > dollars will be spent with nothing to show for it. > Another example of > government business as usual. > Jerry > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Jacobus" > To: "radsafe" ; > > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:39 PM > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Report on the Robust Nuclear > Earth Penetrator (RNET)and > Rare Isotope Accelerator > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: fyi@aip.org > > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 2:00 PM > > To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS) > > Subject: FYI #94: Senate Report Language on RNEP > and > > DOE's RIA > > > > FYI > > The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of > Science > > Policy News > > Number 94: June 22, 2005 > >. . . +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com From davee at med-phys.com Thu Jun 23 14:09:34 2005 From: davee at med-phys.com (David Englehart) Date: Thu Jun 23 14:08:51 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical Radiological Technician Oversight References: <20050623020722.E30E4109EF6@xprdmailfe1.nwk.excite.com> Message-ID: <003001c577ec$6b83bcb0$6401a8c0@kitchen> Arthur, The best mechanism put into place to assure patients have their x-ray exam done properly is a thorough and comprehensive training program for the technologist, leading to certification through the ARRT. Many states require technologists to be certified and licensed, some don't. I live in a state that has no requirements for techs to be trained, certified and licensed. Though, they do regulate beauticians, assuring no one in Mo. gets an unsafe hair cut. There are a few things that should be in place that the certified and licensed tech should adhere to. A tech should obtain continueing education hours per ARRT, state, and fed requirements to further their expertise. Techs should be trained in understanding and performing QC for both the x-ray unit and the film processor, particularly for modalities like mammography, CT, ultrasound, MR, and nuclear medicine. Technique charts should be posted at the machine they are working at, especially if it is a portable, or an older unit not equipped with automatic exposure control. The facility providing the exam should have a preventive maintenance schedule for their service engineer to follow. The tech should be experienced and trained enough to know when to call service if the unit is not performing normally or when QC testing indicates a problem. A medical physicist should be retained to cosult with the facility regarding the points made above, perform annual testing, and provide further training to the technologist. Sincerely, David Englehart Medical Physics Services Ltd. ----- Original Message ----- From: "A" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 9:07 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical Radiological Technician Oversight > > Dear Radsafe Folks, > > What mechanisims are in place to prevent Medical Radiological Techs from > intentionally or unintentionally overexposing their patients to X-rays? > > Sincerely, > Arthur > > > > _______________________________________________ > Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com > The most personalized portal on the Web! > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jun 23 14:10:48 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu Jun 23 14:10:58 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical Radiological Technician Oversight In-Reply-To: <20050623020722.E30E4109EF6@xprdmailfe1.nwk.excite.com> Message-ID: <20050623121048.96426.qmail@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> It is called the switch. Seriously, except for the very rare mechanical failure of the equipment, exposure parameters are usually well defined to produce the appropriate image. Of course, I assume you are refering to diagnostic imaging. In many cases, the equipment has automatic exposure control (ACE) devices to monitor the radiation passing through the receptor. The ACEs will cut back on the voltage or amperage, or both, to ensure the proper image. There is no benefit in giving the patient too much radiation, as there is no benefit in giving too little radiation. --- A wrote: > > Dear Radsafe Folks, > > What mechanisims are in place to prevent Medical > Radiological Techs from intentionally or > unintentionally overexposing their patients to > X-rays? > > Sincerely, > Arthur > >. . . +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jun 23 14:30:13 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu Jun 23 14:30:26 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: EFN - In support of Pierre Pellerin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050623123014.81881.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> I think it is interesting that even France, who acquires 80% of its energy needs from nuclear power, has such anti-radiation fear mongers in its mists. --- "Muckerheide, James" wrote: > Dear Bruno, > > Thank you for your excellent msg explaining the > background of Pr Pellerin's > case! > . . . +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com From garyi at trinityphysics.com Thu Jun 23 16:27:34 2005 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi@trinityphysics.com) Date: Thu Jun 23 16:20:30 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical Radiological Technician Oversight In-Reply-To: <003001c577ec$6b83bcb0$6401a8c0@kitchen> Message-ID: <42BA8086.8246.D9C5A62@localhost> David, I agree that training and certification are good things to have for technologists, but will that make a significant difference in patient dose? I don't see much evidence to indicate that that is the case. No technologist I know acts as if patient dose reduction is part of the imaging job, and I work in a state *with* credentialing requirements. I think the other things you mentioned are more important in that regard. Regulated dose limits, regular checks, and penalties for failure to comply are what really reduce patient dose. If credentialed technologists were the key, then pediatric CT doses would not have caught everybody with their pants down. Repeat analysis helps but its only done at JCAHO facilities. Also, there is significant inconsistency in the regulations with respect to dose. Consider the various dose limits (or lack thereof) for x-ray vs CT, fluoro, & mammography. Back to Arthurs question: > What mechanisims are in place to prevent Medical Radiological Techs from > intentionally or unintentionally overexposing their patients Arthur, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you are asking about a specific scenario. Can you elaborate? What sort of exam? X-ray, fluoro, CT, ....? Thanks, Gary Isenhower On 23 Jun 2005 at 7:09, David Englehart wrote: > Arthur, > > The best mechanism put into place to assure patients have their x-ray > exam done properly is a thorough and comprehensive training program > for the technologist, leading to certification through the ARRT. Many > states require technologists to be certified and licensed, some don't. > I live in a state that has no requirements for techs to be trained, > certified and licensed. Though, they do regulate beauticians, > assuring no one in Mo. gets an unsafe hair cut. > From phil.egidi at state.co.us Thu Jun 23 16:30:12 2005 From: phil.egidi at state.co.us (Philip Egidi) Date: Thu Jun 23 16:30:38 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] World Health Organization launches the International Radon Project Message-ID: For your information, Phil Egidi http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2005/np15/en/index.html From mike.bohan at yale.edu Thu Jun 23 17:24:24 2005 From: mike.bohan at yale.edu (Michael Bohan) Date: Thu Jun 23 17:24:30 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re:Medical Radiological Technician Oversight Message-ID: <916253df03c23be2610aea75991fb4f6@yale.edu> Hello Arthur and RADSAFER's; In response to your question, I offer the following response: 1. Why would an x-ray technologist want to intentionally overexpose a patient to x-rays? The overwhelming majority of techs. are very conscientious about using the least radiation possible to produce a good quality diagnostic film. They have extensive technique charts that assist them in choosing the appropriate technical parameters for a diagnostic procedure. If they are using a film based system, an overexposure would cause the films to be so dark that they would be of little diagnostic use. This would require a retake of the exam. In addition, hospital based radiology departments have QA programs that review non-diagnostic films to constantly improve performance and reduce retakes. 2. If they are using newer Computed Radiography (CR) or Digital Radiography (DR) equipment, there are almost no retakes because an overexposed image can be adjusted to diagnostic quality by adjusting the level and window, image parameters. However, in a hospital based radiography program, the QA programs have a Medical Physicist who reviews technique parameters and measures x-ray output levels on at least an annual basis, In addition, in CR and DR, every image records information about the exposure parameters so they can be reviewed for excessive technique. Most private x-ray facilities have the same QA requirements because of State licensing requirements and insurance companies will not reimburse for x-rays unless a QA program comparable to a hospital's, can be demonstrated. 3. Even if an "overexposed" image is taken, the radiation levels used in diagnostic radiology are well below the levels necessary to result in any "real" significant radiation risks (as opposed to theoretical). 4. The only exception to this in diagnostic radiology, is in long fluoroscopic procedures (which are usually therapeutic in nature), where due to the complicated procedures being performed, long exposure times may be necessary. However, in these cases, the x?ray is being controlled by a physician, not a technologist. Interventional radiology physicians are well aware of this and have adopted techniques to minimize the exposures, to avoid acute radiation effects. The doses sometimes achieved in these procedures may get into the level of long term radiation risks, however when you compare the mortality and morbidity risks of the alternatives (usually surgery or no therapy at all), the risk/benefit ratio is usually on the side of the interventional radiological procedure. Regards, Mike Bohan, RSO Yale-New Haven Hospital Radiological Physics 20 York St. - WWW 204 New Haven, CT 06510 Tele: (203) 688-2950 Fax: (203) 688-8682 Email: mike.bohan@yale.edu Dear Radsafe Folks, What mechanisims are in place to prevent Medical Radiological Techs from intentionally or unintentionally overexposing their patients to X-rays? Sincerely, Arthur From grantjoh at pacbell.net Thu Jun 23 17:52:13 2005 From: grantjoh at pacbell.net (John Grant) Date: Thu Jun 23 17:51:23 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical Radiological Technician Oversight References: <20050623020722.E30E4109EF6@xprdmailfe1.nwk.excite.com> <003001c577ec$6b83bcb0$6401a8c0@kitchen> Message-ID: <42BADAAD.5060503@pacbell.net> David Englehart wrote: > Arthur, > > The best mechanism put into place to assure patients have their x-ray > exam done properly is a thorough and comprehensive training program > for the technologist, leading to certification through the ARRT. If the tech is not giving the correct exposure the film will be unusable. The head of the department should be able to look at the bad films and see who is not doing their job correctly. John Grant From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jun 23 18:19:38 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu Jun 23 18:19:47 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical Radiological Technician Oversight In-Reply-To: <42BA8086.8246.D9C5A62@localhost> Message-ID: <20050623161938.4101.qmail@web54306.mail.yahoo.com> I was at a few meetings involving high CT doses. Part of the problem is that there was never any reason to change the machine settings between patients. If the dose is too high with film imaging, the film will be black. If the CT dose is too high, you just adjust the contrast until you get a quality image. There was no reason to change the settings as you had the image you needed. --- garyi@trinityphysics.com wrote: > David, > I agree that training and certification are good > things to have for technologists, but will > that make a significant difference in patient dose? > I don't see much evidence to > indicate that that is the case. No technologist I > know acts as if patient dose reduction is > part of the imaging job, and I work in a state > *with* credentialing requirements. I think > the other things you mentioned are more important in > that regard. Regulated dose > limits, regular checks, and penalties for failure to > comply are what really reduce patient > dose. If credentialed technologists were the key, > then pediatric CT doses would not > have caught everybody with their pants down. Repeat > analysis helps but its only done > at JCAHO facilities. Also, there is significant > inconsistency in the regulations with > respect to dose. Consider the various dose limits > (or lack thereof) for x-ray vs CT, > fluoro, & mammography. > > Back to Arthurs question: > > > What mechanisims are in place to prevent Medical > Radiological Techs from > > intentionally or unintentionally overexposing > their patients > > Arthur, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it > sounds as if you are asking about a > specific scenario. Can you elaborate? What sort of > exam? X-ray, fluoro, CT, ....? > > Thanks, > Gary Isenhower > > > On 23 Jun 2005 at 7:09, David Englehart > wrote: > > > Arthur, > > > > The best mechanism put into place to assure > patients have their x-ray > > exam done properly is a thorough and comprehensive > training program > > for the technologist, leading to certification > through the ARRT. Many > > states require technologists to be certified and > licensed, some don't. > > I live in a state that has no requirements for > techs to be trained, > > certified and licensed. Though, they do regulate > beauticians, > > assuring no one in Mo. gets an unsafe hair cut. > > > . . . +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hflong at pacbell.net Thu Jun 23 19:17:16 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Thu Jun 23 19:17:28 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] CT Disclosure In-Reply-To: <20050623161938.4101.qmail@web54306.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050623171716.36739.qmail@web81806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> CT dose (av 1 rad for chest) is enough that I abandoned a hormesis study design in which controls would have had CT (and hormesis) while finding lung cancer. However, patients should be informed of 1, the dose, 2, brief comment from both Gofman fearmongers and Luan-like hormesis promoters, and 3, the prescribing physician's reason for the CT. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: I was at a few meetings involving high CT doses. Part of the problem is that there was never any reason to change the machine settings between patients. If the dose is too high with film imaging, the film will be black. If the CT dose is too high, you just adjust the contrast until you get a quality image. There was no reason to change the settings as you had the image you needed. --- garyi@trinityphysics.com wrote: > David, > I agree that training and certification are good > things to have for technologists, but will > that make a significant difference in patient dose? > I don't see much evidence to > indicate that that is the case. No technologist I > know acts as if patient dose reduction is > part of the imaging job, and I work in a state > *with* credentialing requirements. I think > the other things you mentioned are more important in > that regard. Regulated dose > limits, regular checks, and penalties for failure to > comply are what really reduce patient > dose. If credentialed technologists were the key, > then pediatric CT doses would not > have caught everybody with their pants down. Repeat > analysis helps but its only done > at JCAHO facilities. Also, there is significant > inconsistency in the regulations with > respect to dose. Consider the various dose limits > (or lack thereof) for x-ray vs CT, > fluoro, & mammography. > > Back to Arthurs question: > > > What mechanisims are in place to prevent Medical > Radiological Techs from > > intentionally or unintentionally overexposing > their patients > > Arthur, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it > sounds as if you are asking about a > specific scenario. Can you elaborate? What sort of > exam? X-ray, fluoro, CT, ....? > > Thanks, > Gary Isenhower > > > On 23 Jun 2005 at 7:09, David Englehart > wrote: > > > Arthur, > > > > The best mechanism put into place to assure > patients have their x-ray > > exam done properly is a thorough and comprehensive > training program > > for the technologist, leading to certification > through the ARRT. Many > > states require technologists to be certified and > licensed, some don't. > > I live in a state that has no requirements for > techs to be trained, > > certified and licensed. Though, they do regulate > beauticians, > > assuring no one in Mo. gets an unsafe hair cut. > > / From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jun 23 19:30:36 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu Jun 23 19:30:46 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: CT Disclosure In-Reply-To: <20050623171716.36739.qmail@web81806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050623173036.20849.qmail@web54305.mail.yahoo.com> Glad to hear that you abandoned your hormesis study. I would hate to see you waste your time. How is your belt of welding rods doing? --- howard long wrote: > CT dose (av 1 rad for chest) is enough that I > abandoned a hormesis study design in which controls > would have had CT (and hormesis) while finding lung > cancer. > > However, patients should be informed of > 1, the dose, > 2, brief comment from both Gofman fearmongers and > Luan-like hormesis promoters, and > 3, the prescribing physician's reason for the CT. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > I was at a few meetings involving high CT doses. > Part > of the problem is that there was never any reason to > change the machine settings between patients. If the > dose is too high with film imaging, the film will be > black. If the CT dose is too high, you just adjust > the contrast until you get a quality image. There > was > no reason to change the settings as you had the > image > you needed. > > --- garyi@trinityphysics.com wrote: > > > David, > > I agree that training and certification are good > > things to have for technologists, but will > > that make a significant difference in patient > dose? > > I don't see much evidence to > > indicate that that is the case. No technologist I > > know acts as if patient dose reduction is > > part of the imaging job, and I work in a state > > *with* credentialing requirements. I think > > the other things you mentioned are more important > in > > that regard. Regulated dose > > limits, regular checks, and penalties for failure > to > > comply are what really reduce patient > > dose. If credentialed technologists were the key, > > then pediatric CT doses would not > > have caught everybody with their pants down. > Repeat > > analysis helps but its only done > > at JCAHO facilities. Also, there is significant > > inconsistency in the regulations with > > respect to dose. Consider the various dose limits > > (or lack thereof) for x-ray vs CT, > > fluoro, & mammography. > > . . . +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com From Orion1111 at aol.com Thu Jun 23 20:28:42 2005 From: Orion1111 at aol.com (Orion1111@aol.com) Date: Thu Jun 23 20:28:58 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Pierre Pellerin Message-ID: <6b.47d9d895.2fec595a@aol.com> Does anyone know Pierre Pellerin's email or mailing address? I need to contact him on a different matter. Please reply off-list. Thanks, Bob Gorson From don.mercado at lmco.com Thu Jun 23 20:59:36 2005 From: don.mercado at lmco.com (Mercado, Don) Date: Thu Jun 23 21:08:36 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Report on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNET)and Rare Isotope Accelerator Message-ID: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE81F5A9@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> There are deep earth penetrates that were developed at the end of the first Gulf war, and they do work. But John is right; unless you know where to hit, you're just blowing holes deep in dirt and rock. Its just another dumb bomb. But it is nice to have the tool available if you need it. Nukes would certainly affect a wider area than a conventional payload. Definitely a small expense if compared to a JDAM or JASSAM program. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 5:02 AM To: jjcohen@prodigy.net; radsafe Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Report on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNET)and Rare Isotope Accelerator The use of military weapons requires a knowledge of intelligence of location and vulnerability. Our experiences in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. does not give me confidence. --- jjcohen@prodigy.net wrote: > John et al, > Whether it uses nuclear or conventional > technology, I still think the > RNEP is a dumb idea. I seriously doubt that the technohustlers who > are pushing the concept have a clue as to a feasible > physical principle > on how it could work. All work on the RNEP will > likely be classified to > cover up the inevitable blundering and eventually > millions of taxpayer's > dollars will be spent with nothing to show for it. > Another example of > government business as usual. > Jerry > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Jacobus" > To: "radsafe" ; > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:39 PM > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Report on the Robust Nuclear > Earth Penetrator (RNET)and > Rare Isotope Accelerator > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: fyi@aip.org > > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 2:00 PM > > To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS) > > Subject: FYI #94: Senate Report Language on RNEP > and > > DOE's RIA > > > > FYI > > The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of > Science > > Policy News > > Number 94: June 22, 2005 > >. . . +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From james.g.barnes at att.net Fri Jun 24 05:58:31 2005 From: james.g.barnes at att.net (James G. Barnes) Date: Fri Jun 24 05:59:49 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access Message-ID: <001501c57871$00c81f80$6501a8c0@jimathome> FYI. Saw this in a weekly newsletter I subscribe to. Jim Barnes =================================== NRC Restores Public Access to More Documents The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on 17 June completed restoration of public access to 70,000 more documents through its online library, ADAMS, after conducting a security-sensitivity review. These administrative, contractual, research, and other documents not related to a specific licensee were removed from the public library on 25 October 2004. The documents may be viewed and retrieved through the NRC's Web-based ADAMS or by using Citrix software. Citrix allows earlier access, by perhaps a day, but requires downloading the appropriate software. Help in using ADAMS or Citrix is available from the NRC Public Document Room by phone at 800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by email. [View press release] From joseroze at netvision.net.il Fri Jun 24 14:39:42 2005 From: joseroze at netvision.net.il (Jose Julio Rozental) Date: Fri Jun 24 14:39:52 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] US president visited NPP just 26 years after TMI accident (05/06/24) Message-ID: <00f201c578b9$cb5a68f0$ceec17ac@userqzqxd9wnct> Bush Expresses Empathy With Workers At Md. Nuclear Plant, He Talks About the Economy's Impact By Jim VandeHei Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, June 23, 2005; Page A04 President Bush sounded a bit like Bill Clinton yesterday, telling Americans who are out of work, short on cash or frustrated by the rapidly changing economy that he feels their pain. .......................... "I know some workers are concerned about jobs going overseas," Bush said. "I know some are concerned about gaining the skills necessary to compete in the global market that we live in. I know that families are worried about health care and retirement, and I know moms and dads are worried about their children finding good jobs."............... Jose Julio Rozental joseroze@netvision.net.il Israel From joseroze at netvision.net.il Fri Jun 24 14:48:32 2005 From: joseroze at netvision.net.il (Jose Julio Rozental) Date: Fri Jun 24 14:48:43 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fw: US president visited NPP just 26 years after TMI accident (05/06/24) Message-ID: <011501c578bb$074de4d0$ceec17ac@userqzqxd9wnct> Dear colleagues, Sorry, the site: US president visited NPP just 26 years after TMI accident. This visit have possibility to be remembered as turning point of surge of nuclear power production. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062200 862.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jose Julio Rozental" To: "Radsafe" Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 3:39 PM Subject: US president visited NPP just 26 years after TMI accident (05/06/24) > Bush Expresses Empathy With Workers > At Md. Nuclear Plant, He Talks About the Economy's Impact > By Jim VandeHei > > Washington Post Staff Writer > > Thursday, June 23, 2005; Page A04 > President Bush sounded a bit like Bill Clinton yesterday, telling Americans > who are out of work, short on cash or frustrated by the rapidly changing > economy that he feels their pain. > .......................... > "I know some workers are concerned about jobs going overseas," Bush said. "I > know some are concerned about gaining the skills necessary to compete in the > global market that we live in. I know that families are worried about health > care and retirement, and I know moms and dads are worried about their > children finding good jobs."............... > > Jose Julio Rozental > joseroze@netvision.net.il > Israel > From ab19283 at excite.com Fri Jun 24 01:03:29 2005 From: ab19283 at excite.com (A) Date: Fri Jun 24 15:39:36 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight Message-ID: <20050623230329.A7982109E90@xprdmailfe1.nwk.excite.com> Of all the millions of radiological procedures performed by the many thousands of (possibly uncertified) technicians, is no one concerned that foul play is not occurring? Imagine for a moment that one tech decided not to be upstanding and trustworthy, for whatever reason... They could easily overdose a patient and suffer absolutely no risk of being caught or exposed. If they are careful to keep the dose under a certain level, there would be no immediate evidence. The harm would come many months or even years later, and even then, there would be no way to link the harm to them. Most patients are woefully unaware of how many exposures (and of what duration) any radiologic procedure requires. I understand that exposure records are not kept and that patient dosimetry is not required. It is also likely that a technician see the same patient over their lifetime. The opportunity for abuse is tremendous. The lack of oversight of someone with a potentially undetectable lethal weapon is utterly appauling. Arthur _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! From wesvanpelt at att.net Fri Jun 24 16:54:46 2005 From: wesvanpelt at att.net (Wesley) Date: Fri Jun 24 15:55:15 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access In-Reply-To: <001501c57871$00c81f80$6501a8c0@jimathome> Message-ID: <200506241355.j5ODtBuR003579@radlab.nl> Radsafers, Well, I was glad to see the NRC restoring its ADAMS database. The bad news is that there seems to be no materials licenses or license applications available. Several years ago you could download a pdf file of any license issued by the NRC. It seems that is still no longer possible. Does anyone have the same or different experience? Best regards, Wes Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD, CIH, CHP Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James G. Barnes Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 10:59 PM To: RadSafe List Subject: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access FYI. Saw this in a weekly newsletter I subscribe to. Jim Barnes =================================== NRC Restores Public Access to More Documents The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on 17 June completed restoration of public access to 70,000 more documents through its online library, ADAMS, after conducting a security-sensitivity review. These administrative, contractual, research, and other documents not related to a specific licensee were removed from the public library on 25 October 2004. The documents may be viewed and retrieved through the NRC's Web-based ADAMS or by using Citrix software. Citrix allows earlier access, by perhaps a day, but requires downloading the appropriate software. Help in using ADAMS or Citrix is available from the NRC Public Document Room by phone at 800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by email. [View press release] _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From danny.mcclung at louisville.edu Fri Jun 24 16:44:08 2005 From: danny.mcclung at louisville.edu (Danny K McClung) Date: Fri Jun 24 16:44:44 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight Message-ID: Lethal weapon? My God, where have I been? Please give it a rest. Too many horror novels? Or did you just watch "The Incredible Shrinking Man"? Danny K. McClung, RRPT Health Physicist/Asst. RSO ******************** University of Louisville Health Sciences Center 319 Abraham Flexner Way Room 102, Building 55A Louisville, KY 40202 502-852-5231 (phone) 502-852-8911 (fax) GO CARDS !! From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri Jun 24 18:15:39 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri Jun 24 18:15:49 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight In-Reply-To: <20050623230329.A7982109E90@xprdmailfe1.nwk.excite.com> Message-ID: <20050624161539.95030.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> I cannot imagine why a technologist would overdose a patient. Do you have a reason? Are looking to sue someone? --- A wrote: > > Of all the millions of radiological procedures > performed by the many thousands of (possibly > uncertified) technicians, is no one concerned that > foul play is not occurring? > > Imagine for a moment that one tech decided not to be > upstanding and trustworthy, for whatever reason... > > They could easily overdose a patient and suffer > absolutely no risk of being caught or exposed. If > they are careful to keep the dose under a certain > level, there would be no immediate evidence. The > harm would come many months or even years later, and > even then, there would be no way to link the harm to > them. Most patients are woefully unaware of how > many exposures (and of what duration) any radiologic > procedure requires. I understand that exposure > records are not kept and that patient dosimetry is > not required. It is also likely that a technician > see the same patient over their lifetime. The > opportunity for abuse is tremendous. > > The lack of oversight of someone with a potentially > undetectable lethal weapon is utterly appauling. > > Arthur > > > _______________________________________________ > Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com > The most personalized portal on the Web! > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing > list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have > read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be > found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe > and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com From sandyfl at earthlink.net Sat Jun 25 02:40:59 2005 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sat Jun 25 02:41:11 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Armenia to close only nuclear plant by 2016: deputy minister Message-ID: <42BC45AB.15137.28F2D1FD@localhost> Index: Armenia to close only nuclear plant by 2016: deputy minister Dutch PM's Party Advocates Nuclear Energy In Policy Paper NRC cites Entergy for misplaced Vermont fuel rod Former President Carter Highlights Nuclear Energy's Role During Tour False Alarms Plague Anti-Nuke System at U.S. Ports Paper Runs Censored Stories on Nuclear Bomb Aftermath Air Force Finds No Trace of Nuclear Bomb Lost in 1958 Russian customs officers prevent radioactive scrap metal shipment Japan tells EU of decision to forfeit bid nuclear fusion reactor Initiative to reduce cancer risks associated with radon gas Duke Energy Sees Need For 4,000 MW New Capacity By 2015 Venezuela dimisses jitters over nuclear program Small enriched uranium missing from nuclear power plant in Japan Confidential data from Japanese nuclear plants ends up on Internet ======================================== Armenia to close only nuclear plant by 2016: deputy minister YEREVAN, Armenia (AP) - Armenia plans to close its only nuclear power plant, which supplies nearly 40 percent of the country's power, by 2016, Deputy Energy Minister Areg Galstyan said on Friday. By this date, the impoverished Caucasus state aims to have developed alternative electricity sources, he told reporters. However, the deputy minister said that Armenia wanted to preserve its nuclear power industry as it had experts in the sector and infrastructure. The former Soviet republic has been under international pressure from the European Union and others to shut the plant down due to safety concerns; it was taken out of operation after a devastating 1988 earthquake. In 1995, it returned to service amid a severe energy shortage. Armenia has since resisted shutting down the plant, which has one working Soviet-made reactor, fearing that alternative sources of power may be hard to come by. Armenian officials say the European Union is ready to provide up to 100 million (US$120 million) for Yerevan to close the plant. However, building a new nuclear power plant could cost up to US$1 billion (1.2 billion), Armenian officials say. ------------------- Dutch PM's Party Advocates Nuclear Energy In Policy Paper THE HAGUE (AP)--Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's party said Thursday the country needed more nuclear reactors because it can't rely on fossil fuels, which contribute to global warming. The policy paper by the Christian Democratic Appeal, or CDA, is the latest sign of a reversal in the trend to phase out nuclear power, reflecting the growing concern about climate change and the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the main byproduct of burning coal and oil. The Netherlands has one nuclear reactor used for energy. The Borssele plant had until recently been scheduled for closure, but all parties in the governing coalition now agree it must remain active. Balkenende's government reopened the sensitive debate on nuclear power in February, saying all options needed to be considered as the country tried to meet its growing energy needs. The main opposition Labor Party, which is roughly as large as the CDA, continues to support Borssele's closure. In its policy blueprint released Thursday, the CDA said not only should Borssele remain on line, but more reactors should be built. It also suggested investing heavily in alternative energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass, while working to cut use of fossil fuels, and reducing overall energy use by consumers and industry. "Nuclear energy will remain an option during the transition to durable energy to reduce CO2 emissions from electricity production," the party said in a statement. "By focusing on the development of clean energy technology, the Netherlands will gain an economic advantage." Environmental activists from Greenpeace stepped up their campaign against nuclear energy, citing the threat of nuclear accidents and the problems of disposing of waste. Wednesday, they dumped 200 empty oil drums - labeled as nuclear waste - into a pond outside the parliament building. "We demand that the Cabinet stand by its earlier commitment to close Borssele in 2013 and opt for a durable energy policy that focuses on saving energy and safe energy sources," Greenpeace said in a statement. The Borssele reactor has been the focus of protests by environmental groups for decades. It is owned by the Zuid Nederland Electricity Company and has a capacity of 450 megawatts, enough to power a million homes ------------------ NRC cites Entergy for misplaced Vermont fuel rod NEW YORK, June 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a notice of violation to Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. for temporarily losing track of two spent fuel rod pieces at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. In a release, the NRC said Entergy Nuclear, a subsidiary of New Orleans-based energy company Entergy Corp. , found the pieces, measuring 9 and 17 inches respectively, in the spent fuel pool at the Vernon, Vermont, facility last year. The NRC, however, did not impose a civil penalty on Entergy Nuclear in part because the company -- the second-biggest nuclear power company in the United States -- worked quickly to correct the problem, a spokeswoman for the federal agency said. Entergy Nuclear has 30 days to respond to the notice. The pieces never left the pool but were in a location not consistent with plant records. The material remained in the pool at all times, and there were no impacts on plant workers or members of the public. The 510-megawatt station, capable of powering more than 400,000 homes, is located in Windham County about 80 miles north of Hartford, Connecticut. Entergy Nuclear did not own the plant when the pieces were lost. The reactor's previous owner transferred the pieces to a different part of the spent fuel pool in January 1980 long before Entergy bought the plant in 2002 but did not keep accurate records of their location. The NRC also did not impose any civil penalties on the reactor's previous owners, the agency spokeswoman said. Before Entergy bought the reactor, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. operated the plant for its owners: Central Vermont Public Service Corp. (33 percent), National Grid Transco Plc's New England Power (24), Green Mountain Power Corp. (19), Northeast Utilities' Connecticut Light and Power (10), Public Service Co of New Hampshire (4) and Western Massachusetts Electric (3), Energy East Corp.'s Central Maine Power (4) and NSTAR's Cambridge Electric Light (3). Losing track of the irradiated fuel pieces increases the possibility the company could have accidentally mixed the pieces with other irradiated components and shipped them offsite to a low-level radioactive waste burial site, the NRC said. After two entire spent fuel rods could not be located in the spent fuel pool at the permanently shut-down Millstone 1 nuclear power plant in Connecticut in 2000, the NRC's resident inspectors carried out inspections at each plant. At Vermont Yankee, Entergy confirmed in April 2004 that two fuel pieces were not in a container on the bottom of the spent fuel pool, as plant records indicated. Entergy immediately launched an investigation to search for the missing pieces and discovered the pieces in July in a container known as a liner in a different part of the spent fuel pool. Entergy's subsidiaries own and operate about 30,000 MW of generating capacity, market electricity, and transmit and distribute power to 2.6 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. --------------- Former President Carter Highlights Nuclear Energy's Role During Tour of AEP's Cook Nuclear Plant BRIDGMAN, Mich., June 24 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Former President Jimmy Carter affirmed his optimism for the future of nuclear energy while highlighting the important role it has played in the United States during a visit to American Electric Power's (NYSE: AEP) Cook Nuclear Plant this morning. "I am very proud of what nuclear power has done for our nation's security and well-being," Carter told a group of Cook employees before exiting the plant. "I think the future holds great opportunities for nuclear power because safety has improved, technology has improved and environmental quality has improved." The Carter visit to Cook comes on the heels of President George W. Bush's visit Wednesday to a nuclear plant in Maryland, the first presidential visit to a nuclear plant since Carter's 1979 visit to Three Mile Island in the aftermath of the accident there. Carter, wife Rosalynn, and several family members participated in the Cook Plant tour during a break from their Jimmy Carter Habitat for Humanity Work Project in nearby Benton Harbor, where after the tour Carter dedicated 20 homes completed as part of the project. "It was heartening to hear our 39th president, Jimmy Carter, echo the words of current President Bush about the important role of nuclear energy and the need for new nuclear generation to be part of America's future electricity generating fleet," said Michael G. Morris, AEP's chairman, president and chief executive officer. "Both President Bush and President Carter have recognized the safety of the new designs for nuclear plants and the environmental benefits of having nuclear remain a vital part of the nation's energy mix." Morris and Mano Nazar, AEP's chief nuclear officer, led a 90-minute tour that included plant control rooms, the turbine building and a briefing on plant security. In the plant's control rooms, Carter interacted with plant reactor operators and questioned them about changes in nuclear technology since his time in the Navy and improvements made since Three Mile Island. Carter was a nuclear engineer in the Navy and served as senior officer on the Seawolf, the second nuclear submarine. In February, the Navy commissioned its newest nuclear-powered attack submarine, The Jimmy Carter. "We're proud of the safety, training, and operational improvements made in the industry since you last visited a plant," Nazar told Carter. "And since 911, security upgrades have also been dramatic." American Electric Power owns more than 36,000 megawatts of generating capacity in the United States and is the nation's largest electricity generator. AEP is also one of the largest electric utilities in the United States, with more than 5 million customers linked to AEP's 11- state electricity transmission and distribution grid. The company is based in Columbus, Ohio. ---------------- False Alarms Plague Anti-Nuke System at U.S. Ports WASHINGTON (June 21) - The post-Sept. 11 security blanket designed to keep nuclear material out of U.S. ports still has plenty of holes, including scores of false alarms from radiation detectors, scientists told Congress on Tuesday. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey security manager Bethann Rooney said the facility receives "about 150 alarms a day'' from the 22 radiation portal monitors at the site. That's more than 10 times the number of false alarms originally expected. Rooney was among a handful of experts who testified before a House Homeland Security subcommittee reviewing the nation's anti-nuke efforts. Federal agents at Rooney's facilities use radiation detectors on about 45 percent of containers, and they plan to raise that to 85 percent at the end of the year after receiving additional detectors. Rooney said the false alarms have not slowed shipping out of her port because follow-up inspections usually take less than 10 minutes. Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., said he was worried that the high number of false alarms has prompted some agents to reduce the sensitivity of the devices, making them less effective in spotting real danger. An official with the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said the high number of false alarms is not limited to the New Jersey port. Gene Aloise also noted that some border agents have been improperly using handheld radiation detectors to try to sweep an entire container, and he urged better training to rectify that error. Since Sept. 11, the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars at U.S. ports and overseas posts in an effort to keep out a so-called "dirty bomb.'' Characterized by Dr. Benn Tannenbaum as a "weapon of mass disruption,'' a dirty bomb would spread radioactive material over an area but not likely cause the high death toll of a nuclear weapon. Dr. Richard Wagner of the Los Alamos National Laboratory cautioned that the port radiation detection devices, which stand some 20 feet tall, are not effective in detecting the highly enriched uranium that would be the key component of a nuclear weapon. Wagner said that if the U.S. wants to keep out a nuclear bomb, it would do better to keep close tabs on the foreign sources of uranium in places like the former Soviet Union. "It will always be far easier to monitor a lump of uranium at a known location than it will be to detect uranium smuggling,'' he said. The scientist also urged lawmakers not to worry about missteps in the development and use of various high-tech tools. "There will be false starts and there will be money wasted,'' Wagner said. "You're going to have to find some way for finding just the right degree of oversight.'' ----------------- Paper Runs Censored Stories on Nuclear Bomb Aftermath TOKYO (June 19) - An American journalist who sneaked into Nagasaki soon after the Japanese city was leveled by a U.S. atomic bomb found a "wasteland of war" and victims moaning from the pain of radiation burns in downtown hospitals. Censored 60 years ago by the U.S. military, George Weller's stories from the atom bombed-city surfaced this month in a series of reports in the national Mainichi newspaper. A woman at a hospital "lies moaning with a blackish mouth stiff as though with lockjaw and unable to utter clear words," her legs and arms covered with red spots, Weller wrote. Others suffered from a dangerously high-temperature fever, a drop in white and red blood cells, swelling in the throat, sores, vomiting, diarrhea, internal bleeding or loss of hair, his censored dispatch said, describing the then-unknown effects of atomic radiation. By hiring a Japanese rowboat, catching trains and later posing as a U.S. Army colonel, Weller, an award-winning reporter for the now- defunct Chicago Daily News, slipped into Nagasaki in early September 1945, Mainichi said - about a month after the Aug. 9 bombing that killed 70,000 people. In a Sept. 8, 1945 dispatch, Weller wrote of walking through the city - a "wasteland of war" - and finding evidence to back the talk of radiation fallout in American radio news reports. "In swaybacked or flattened skeletons of the Mitsubishi arms plants is revealed what the atomic bomb can do to steel and stone, but what the riven atom can do against human flesh and bone lies hidden in two hospitals of downtown Nagasaki," he wrote. Weller's reportage about the unknown affliction he called "disease X" appeared in Mainichi in Japanese and on its Web site in English. The United States dropped two atomic bombs - the first on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, and the second three days later on Nagasaki, about 614 miles southwest of Tokyo. The twin bombings led to Japan's Aug. 15, 1945, surrender ending the war. Weller, who died in 2002, was the first foreign journalist to set foot in the devastated city, which Gen. Douglas MacArthur, head of the U.S. occupation in Japan, had designated off-limits to reporters, the newspaper said. Carbon copies of his stories, running to about 25,000 words on 75 typed pages, along with more than two dozen photos, were discovered by his son, Anthony, last summer at Weller's apartment in Rome, Italy, Mainichi said. Anthony Weller, a novelist living in Annisquam, Mass., couldn't be reached for comment. He previously said he plans to publish his father's stories. Though he skirted American authorities to get into Nagasaki, Weller submitted his reports - the first was dated Sept. 6 - to the censors. The stories infuriated MacArthur and he personally ordered them quashed. The originals were never returned to him. Anthony Weller told Mainichi he thought wartime officials wanted to hush up stories about radiation sickness and feared that his father's reports would sway American public opinion against building an arsenal of nuclear bombs. The first batch of stories were finished just as a delegation of American scientists was to visit the city to test for radiation. Though thousands of burn victims had died within a week after the attack, doctors were stumped by "this mysterious 'disease X"' which sickened and was killing many Japanese as well as allied soldiers freed from prison camps a month later. Weller met a Japanese doctor and X-ray specialist who thought that the bomb had showered the population with harmfully high levels of beta and gamma radiation. But nobody could say for sure. "The atomic bomb's peculiar 'disease,' uncured because it is untreated and untreated because it is not diagnosed, is still snatching away lives here," Weller wrote. Weller was 95 when he died in December 2002. He won the Pulitzer Prize for an eyewitness account of an emergency appendectomy carried out by a pharmacist's mate on a Navy submarine underwater in the South China Sea. He also covered the French Indochina war in Southeast Asia and World War II in Europe. He also sent dispatches from the Mideast, Africa, the Soviet Union and other parts of Asia. ----------------- Air Force Finds No Trace of Nuclear Bomb Lost in 1958 SAVANNAH, Ga. (June 17) -- The first government search in decades for a nuclear bomb lost off the Georgia coast in 1958 found no trace of the sunken weapon, the Air Force said in a report Friday. The report, released nine months after scientists tested radiation levels off Tybee Island, concluded the 7,600-pound bomb cannot explode and should be left at sea. ''We still think it's irretrievably lost. We don't know where to look for it,'' Dr. Billy Mullins, an Air Force nuclear weapons adviser who led the search, told a news conference. A damaged B-47 bomber jettisoned the Mark-15 nuke into a sound about 15 miles from Savannah after colliding with a fighter jet during a training flight. The military never recovered the bomb and gave up searching until last year, when a retired Air Force pilot claimed his private search team had detected unusually high radiation levels in the sound. Government scientists investigated, taking radiation readings and soil samples Sept. 30 from water in an area the size of four football fields. The report said varying radiation levels were observed, but they were from natural elements in the sediment on the sea floor. ''The best course of action in this matter is to not continue to search for it and to leave the property in place,'' said the report by the Air Force Nuclear Weapons and Counterproliferation Agency. The Air Force has said the bomb contains uranium and about 400 pounds of conventional explosives, though it lacks the plutonium capsule needed to trigger a nuclear blast. The amount of uranium was undisclosed. In 2001, the Air Force declared the bomb ''irretrievably lost'' and estimated it lies buried beneath 8 to 40 feet of water and 5 to 15 feet of mud and sand. The report issued Friday by the Air Force Nuclear Weapons and Counterproliferation Agency said dropping the search and leaving the bomb was ''the best course of action.'' ------------------ Russian customs officers prevent radioactive scrap metal shipment from reaching China VLADIVOSTOK, Russia (AP) - Russian customs officers prevented a shipment of radioactive scrap metal from being exported to China, the customs service said Thursday. Officers stopped two trucks in the village of Pokrovka in the Russian Far East and impounded their contents after a monitor picked up radioactivity exceeding accepted levels by 150 percent, said Viktoria Shamayeva, spokeswoman for the customs service. An investigation has been launched. ----------------- Japan tells EU of decision to forfeit bid to host multibillion-dollar nuclear fusion reactor, report says TOKYO (AP) - Japan has contacted the European Union to forfeit its bid to host a multibillion-dollar international nuclear fusion reactor, a Japanese newspaper reported Wednesday. The US$13 billion (10.7 billion) International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor will go to Cadarache in southern France, after officials in Tokyo conceded the rivalry to their EU counterparts on Tuesday, the national Mainichi newspaper reported. In exchange for giving up hosting rights, Tokyo expects Japanese suppliers and scientists to win a large share of the project's jobs, the daily said, without citing sources. The ITER plant aims to show that nuclear fusion presents a vast, safe source of energy that can wean the world off pollution-producing fossil fuels. Nuclear fusion produces no greenhouse gas emissions and only low levels of radioactive waste. The start of the project has been delayed for months because the six parties have been split over where to build the plant. Tokyo was expected to formally announce its decision on June 28 at a meeting in Russia, according to media reports. Japan, the United States and South Korea wanted it at Rokkasho in northern Japan. Russia, China and the EU want it at Cadarache, in southern France. Education Ministry officials in charge of Tokyo's negotiations were not immediately available early Wednesday. ----------------- U.N. health agency launches initiative to reduce cancer risks associated with radon gas GENEVA (AP) - The U.N. health agency on Tuesday launched an initiative to reduce risks associated with the cancer-causing radon gas, saying there is little public awareness that it can harm humans in their homes. Most exposure occurs in houses, where concentrations of the gas - the world's second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking - depend on the amount of radon-producing uranium in underlying rocks and how easily it can get in, the World Health Organization said. "Radon accumulates within the house, so people are breathing this radioactive gas, which is tasteless, colorless," said Dr. Mike Repacholi, WHO's radiation and environmental health chief. WHO recommends improving underfloor ventilation and sealing cracks in floors in existing homes in radon-rich areas - including many parts of northern and eastern Europe. Houses in particularly affected areas can be fitted with new basement ventilation systems, although this is more expensive. Radon gas is also present outdoors, but levels are usually very low because of dilution in the air. High concentrations can be found in caves, mines and water treatment centers, but by far the greatest exposure for people occurs in the home, WHO said. High levels can also be found in some drinking water sources. Radon is also more likely to gather in houses where walls and roofs have been insulated against cold weather, as this cuts down airflow. The risk of contracting lung cancer is significantly greater for smokers who live in houses where radon accumulates, Repacholi said. The health agency said it was setting up a global network of scientists and other experts who will research risks associated with radon and the cost-effectiveness of possible measures to prevent it seeping into houses. The results of their work will provide guidelines to help national authorities increase public awareness of radon's potential dangers. People who use radon spas - which are popular in central and eastern Europe as well as Japan - may also be exposing themselves to increased risk of lung cancer, Repacholi added. ----------------- Duke Energy Sees Need For 4,000 MW New Capacity By 2015 NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Duke Power, the regulated utility of Duke Energy Corp. (DUK), said Wednesday that it needs to increase its baseload generation capacity by 4,000 megawatts, or 20%, by 2015. That additional need could be met with purchased power, intermediate and peaking capacity and new baseload capacity in the form of coal- or nuclear-fired generation, said Ruth Shaw, the utility's president and chief executive. Since completing construction of its Catawba nuclear station in 1986, Duke has relied on purchased power and other means to boost its capacity rather than building new generation facilities itself. "Load growth is outstripping our capacity to meet it with these strategies," she said during a monthly conference call with investors. As an early step toward building new generation, last month Duke Power filed preliminary information with the North Carolina Utilities Commission to modernize and expand its Cliffside and Buck Steam stations. At Cliffside, the utility could build a new 800MW coal-fired plant as early as 2010 at an estimated cost of $1.1 billion, Shaw, the CEO, said. Duke will determine the timing of a second 800MW coal plant based on load growth and the construction schedule of a new nuclear plant, she said. The second plant is projected to cost $900 million. Depending on the results of a pending request for proposal, Duke either will build a combined-cycle, natural gas- and oil-fired plant at the Buck station at an estimated cost of $350 million or buy intermediate capacity from external sources. There is no definite timetable for possible construction. This year, the utility plans to determine the potential location and size of a new nuclear plant, for which Shaw said she believes public support is growing. "We want to maintain the option to build a nuclear plant by proceeding through each step in the licensing and design process," she said. Like other utilities mulling additional nuclear capacity, Duke said it needs assurances about a long-term solution for the storage of radioactive waste and that regulations won't be changed in the middle of construction. The earliest Duke sees a new nuclear plant coming on line is 2015. Currently, 28% of Duke's power generation is nuclear. The utility said it expects compounded annual growth of earnings before interest and taxes to be flat to 2% through 2007. ----------------- Venezuela dimisses jitters over nuclear program CARACAS, Venezuela, June 24 (Reuters) - Venezuela will pursue plans to develop nuclear technology for its medical, industrial and oil sectors despite regional jitters over possible cooperation with Iran, the science minister said. Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, a critic of the United States and an ally of communist Cuba, met with wary reactions from South American neighbors last month when he said he could acquire nuclear technology with the possible help of Tehran. But Science Minister Marlene Yadira Cordova dismissed as "rushed" initial reaction to Venezuela's plan to develop atomic technology with partners such as Iran, which Washington brands as part of an "axis of evil". "In the scheme of alliances Venezuela has developed, any country where we have the conditions for scientific and technological cooperation in this area could be part of the process," Cordova told Reuters in a recent interview. "It could be used for industry and for continued medical uses, which the country needs to support hospitals... and the third element is for energy for the oil industry," she said. Venezuela has backed Iran in its dispute with the United States and Europe over Tehran's nuclear program. U.S. officials accuse Iran of secretly working to produce nuclear arms, but Tehran says the program is only for civilian energy uses. Chavez said in May that Venezuela and other Latin American countries such as Brazil and Argentina could develop nuclear energy as an alternative power source. But Brazil said it would likely not cooperate with Venezuela on nuclear energy projects involving Iran. A Brazilian government official described possible Iranian involvement as "risky" and pointed to Brazil's energy projects with Argentina and the United States. Chavez, a former soldier who has promised to fight poverty, says his "new socialism" counters U.S. policies in Latin America and he has strengthened ties with Iran, Russia and Cuba to move away from a traditional reliance on Washington. The firebrand Venezuelan leader says U.S. officials are plotting to oust him. Washington dismisses his charges, but portrays Chavez as a troublemaker in South America. Cordova said Venezuela had closed down its RV1 nuclear reaction more than 10 years ago and recently converted it to the Pegamma irradiation plant for industrial and medical uses and for scientific study. "We should within the next two years start building at least one other irradiation plant," she said. The minister said that technology could be used for food sterilization and medical purposes. She said in the longer term Venezuela would study possible use of nuclear energy in the processing and production of its vast petroleum reserves. ---------------- Minute amount of enriched uranium missing from nuclear power plant in Japan TOKYO (AP) - A small amount of enriched uranium - not enough to make a bomb - has gone missing from a nuclear power plant in central Japan, the Science Ministry said Friday. Officials have been unable to locate a neutron-detecting device containing 1.7 milligrams of enriched uranium at the No. 3 reactor at Takahama nuclear power plant in Fukui prefecture (state) about 320 kilometers (200 miles) west of Tokyo, the ministry said in a statement. The amount missing is too small to make a bomb, a ministry official said on condition of anonymity. The missing uranium is not radioactive enough to pose a threat to humans, the official said. The device, used to measure the level of neutrons in the reactor, was found to be missing Friday afternoon during an inspection of the nuclear fuel inventory at the plant, which is operated by Kansai Electric Power Co. The whereabouts of the uranium was last confirmed on July 6, 2004, during a previous inspection of the plant's inventory, the statement said. Officials have ordered Kansai Electric to conduct a thorough investigation and were set to send ministry inspectors to the plant on Saturday, the ministry said. Another plant run by Kansai Electric, also in Fukui, was the scene of Japan's deadliest-ever nuclear-plant accident last August. In that incident, a corroded cooling pipe carrying boiling water and superheated steam burst at a plant in nearby Mihama, killing five workers. No radiation was released in that accident. Kansai Electric later admitted that the pipe had not been inspected since 1996. It is being investigated on suspicion of negligence leading to death. The government has been eager to push nuclear power to meet the energy needs of resource-poor Japan, but public trust has been deeply shaken by a series of safety violations, reactor malfunctions and accidents in the nuclear energy industry. Japan's 52 nuclear reactors supply 35 percent of the country's electricity. The government wants to build 11 new plants and raised electricity output to nearly 40 percent of the national supply by 2010. Fukui lies about 323 kilometers (202 miles) west of Tokyo. ------------------ Confidential data from Japanese nuclear plants ends up on Internet TOKYO (AP) - Confidential data from Japanese nuclear plants was posted on the Internet when a worker's computer software was attacked by a virus, a company said Thursday. The Japanese government said it was investigating whether the data included sensitive information on nuclear materials. Mitsubishi Electric Industrial Co. said the information - inspection forms, reports and manuals used from 2003 to this year - probably appeared on the Internet sometime after March, but company officials were unaware of it until Wednesday. The files from Tokyo-based affiliate Mitsubishi Plant Engineering Corp. had been saved on a worker's personal computer, which was loaded with file-sharing software, the company said. A virus that infected the software sent those files to the Internet. Mitsubishi Electric said the information was from seven Japanese electric power companies and four other utility industry firms. Though confidential, the data did not appear to include anything about nuclear materials, according to media reports. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From lavelyp at uclink.berkeley.edu Sat Jun 25 03:17:05 2005 From: lavelyp at uclink.berkeley.edu (Paul Lavely) Date: Sat Jun 25 03:17:19 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight In-Reply-To: <20050624161539.95030.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050624161539.95030.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: John, I missed the intentional part. >What mechanisims are in place to prevent Medical Radiological Techs >from intentionally or unintentionally overexposing their patients to >X-rays? I looked only to the issue of unnecessary exposures. My experience was the rad tech who took 7 sequential x-rays of my 2 year old son that "didn't come our right." At that point, I intervened and said that no more x-rays would be taken until the problem was determined and addressed. In this case it was movement. The tech refused to allow me (or anyone else) to be in the room with the child while the x-ray was taken. The kid was hurt, scared, and in a place (and alone) that he had never been before. I knew that my dose would be in the 1 to 2 mrem range, but it took the hospital's head of radiology involvement to get that permission. Additionally the struggle and delay did not help. However, you are clearly correct - why. There was a popular fiction book (maybe by Cook) that had a HMO provider killing off selected patients with a BIG rad source in a ridiculously small shield under a special hospital bed. Perhaps questions such as this (or irrational fears) are spawned by the fiction around us on TV, in movies, and in print. It seems that hospitals offer a variety of "potentially undetectable lethal weapon(s)." A person could choose from pain med overdose, equipment failure, insulin dosing, succinylcholine, administration of a med a person with an extreme allergic (they are noted on the charts). and the list goes on. Would they be found out? Perhaps and perhaps not. The death of a very sick patient of apparent natureal causes would no necessitate calling in Quincy or CSI. However, why would someone do these things and why would they select radiation as their weapon? I have had a couple of aspiring writers ask me about the use of radiation as a poison and I have told them about time, distance, shielding, and access to the material. A "dirty bomb" story sounds good; however, it is far from practical. For most people large amounts of radiation or radioactive materials is hard to get' but, your ACE hardware store can provide a variety of poisons. By the way, a California legislator is proposing a law that would require tracking of patient medical exposures and that MDs consider the history in making a decision as to tests. Paul >I cannot imagine why a technologist would overdose a >patient. Do you have a reason? Are looking to sue >someone? > >--- A wrote: > >> >> Of all the millions of radiological procedures >> performed by the many thousands of (possibly >> uncertified) technicians, is no one concerned that >> foul play is not occurring? >> >> Imagine for a moment that one tech decided not to be >> upstanding and trustworthy, for whatever reason... >> >> They could easily overdose a patient and suffer >> absolutely no risk of being caught or exposed. If >> they are careful to keep the dose under a certain >> level, there would be no immediate evidence. The >> harm would come many months or even years later, and >> even then, there would be no way to link the harm to >> them. Most patients are woefully unaware of how >> many exposures (and of what duration) any radiologic >> procedure requires. I understand that exposure >> records are not kept and that patient dosimetry is >> not required. It is also likely that a technician >> see the same patient over their lifetime. The >> opportunity for abuse is tremendous. >> >> The lack of oversight of someone with a potentially >> undetectable lethal weapon is utterly appauling. >> >> Arthur >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com >> The most personalized portal on the Web! >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing >> list radsafe@radlab.nl >> >> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have > > read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be >> found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html >> >> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe >> and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ >> > > >+++++++++++++++++++ >"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and >never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell >Holmes, Jr. > >-- John >John Jacobus, MS >Certified Health Physicist >e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com > > > >____________________________________________________ >Yahoo! Sports >Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football >http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and >understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: >http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other >settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ -- **** Paul Lavely Radiation Safety Officer Environment, Health & Safety UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-1150 Tel: (510) 643-7976 Fax: (510) 643-9495 From celiar at comcast.net Sat Jun 25 05:04:40 2005 From: celiar at comcast.net (Celia) Date: Sat Jun 25 05:05:50 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight Message-ID: <42BCC9C8.7060606@comcast.net> I have to make a few comments on this topic and this statement that was made - "I cannot imagine why a technologist would overdose a patient." I don't think Arthur's comments are that outrageous. This "overdose" does not have to be intentional - How many of us have had an xray taken only to have the tech come back in and say "I have to retake that shot" Why do they have to retake the shot? Because they missed the area they were supposed to get the image of. This is a perfect example of an overdose - I received more exposure because of a rad techs mistake. Are these mistakes tracked per tech, do these even get documented somewhere and at what point, if any does someone catch on to a tech who routinely misses the shot? I think that a concern of lack of oversight is a legit concern. Celia -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.11/26 - Release Date: 6/22/05 From joseroze at netvision.net.il Sat Jun 25 06:57:56 2005 From: joseroze at netvision.net.il (Jose Julio Rozental) Date: Sat Jun 25 06:58:38 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight References: <20050624161539.95030.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006b01c57942$814d0cc0$ceec17ac@userqzqxd9wnct> "The tech refused to allow me (or anyone else) to be in the room with the child while the x-ray was taken. The kid was hurt, scared, and in a place (and alone) that he had never been before." Comment: I think about 6 years ago I wrote to Radsafers on conforters and visitors to support patients. Anyhow taking into account your above topic, the Basic Safety Standards, IAEA Safety Series 115, recommends, page 93: DOSE LIMITATION FOR COMFORTERS AND VISITORS OF PATIENTS* Dose limitation for comforters and visitors of patients II-9. The dose limits set out in this part shall not apply to comforters of patients, i.e., to individuals knowingly exposed while voluntarily helping (other than in their employment or occupation) in the care, support and comfort of patients undergoing medical diagnosis or treatment, or to visitors of such patients. However, the dose of any such comforter or visitor of patients shall be constrained so that it is unlikely that his or her dose will exceed 5 mSv during the period of a patient's diagnostic examination or treatment. The dose to children visiting patients who have ingested radioactive materials should be similarly constrained to less than 1 mSv. To those interested to go ahead, please look at the site http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1117_scr.pdf to download the Radiological Protection for Medical Exposure to Ionizing Radiation IAEA SAFETY GUIDE No. RS-G-1.5 Please look also at RADIATION SAFETY http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Reports/Anrep2002/radiation_safety.pdf Radiological Protection of Patients A Safety Guide on radiological protection for medical exposure to ionizing radiation, jointly sponsored by the Agency, PAHO and WHO, was published. It provides recommendations on how safety requirements can be applied to protect patients, comforters and visitors of patients against exposure to ionizing radiation in medical practice in compliance with the BSS. Specifically, recommendations cover the establishment of guidance levels for diagnostic medical exposures, acceptance testing processes for radiation equipment, calibration of radiotherapy units and the reporting of accidental medical exposures. As recommended by the 2001 M?laga conference on the radiological protection of patients in diagnostic and interventional radiology, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy, the Agency formulated an action plan based on the findings of the conference. The Board of Governors approved the plan in September 2002, and implementation is proceeding. Areas highlighted in the action plan include education and training, information exchange, provision of guidance and assistance to Member States in the implementation of safety standards, research on radiation doses in new technologies, and the collection and dissemination of information on accidental medical exposure. Jose Julio Rozental joseroze@netvision.net.il Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Lavely" To: "John Jacobus" Cc: Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:17 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight > John, > > I missed the intentional part. > > >What mechanisims are in place to prevent Medical Radiological Techs > >from intentionally or unintentionally overexposing their patients to > >X-rays? > > I looked only to the issue of unnecessary exposures. My experience > was the rad tech who took 7 sequential x-rays of my 2 year old son > that "didn't come our right." At that point, I intervened and said > that no more x-rays would be taken until the problem was determined > and addressed. In this case it was movement. The tech refused to > allow me (or anyone else) to be in the room with the child while the > x-ray was taken. The kid was hurt, scared, and in a place (and alone) > that he had never been before. I knew that my dose would be in the 1 > to 2 mrem range, but it took the hospital's head of radiology > involvement to get that permission. Additionally the struggle and > delay did not help. > > However, you are clearly correct - why. There was a popular fiction > book (maybe by Cook) that had a HMO provider killing off selected > patients with a BIG rad source in a ridiculously small shield under a > special hospital bed. Perhaps questions such as this (or irrational > fears) are spawned by the fiction around us on TV, in movies, and in > print. > > It seems that hospitals offer a variety of "potentially undetectable > lethal weapon(s)." A person could choose from pain med overdose, > equipment failure, insulin dosing, succinylcholine, administration of > a med a person with an extreme allergic (they are noted on the > charts). and the list goes on. Would they be found out? Perhaps and > perhaps not. The death of a very sick patient of apparent natureal > causes would no necessitate calling in Quincy or CSI. However, why > would someone do these things and why would they select radiation as > their weapon? > > I have had a couple of aspiring writers ask me about the use of > radiation as a poison and I have told them about time, distance, > shielding, and access to the material. A "dirty bomb" story sounds > good; however, it is far from practical. For most people large > amounts of radiation or radioactive materials is hard to get' but, > your ACE hardware store can provide a variety of poisons. > > By the way, a California legislator is proposing a law that would > require tracking of patient medical exposures and that MDs consider > the history in making a decision as to tests. > > Paul > > >I cannot imagine why a technologist would overdose a > >patient. Do you have a reason? Are looking to sue > >someone? > > > >--- A wrote: > > > >> > >> Of all the millions of radiological procedures > >> performed by the many thousands of (possibly > >> uncertified) technicians, is no one concerned that > >> foul play is not occurring? > >> > >> Imagine for a moment that one tech decided not to be > >> upstanding and trustworthy, for whatever reason... > >> > >> They could easily overdose a patient and suffer > >> absolutely no risk of being caught or exposed. If > >> they are careful to keep the dose under a certain > >> level, there would be no immediate evidence. The > >> harm would come many months or even years later, and > >> even then, there would be no way to link the harm to > >> them. Most patients are woefully unaware of how > >> many exposures (and of what duration) any radiologic > >> procedure requires. I understand that exposure > >> records are not kept and that patient dosimetry is > >> not required. It is also likely that a technician > >> see the same patient over their lifetime. The > >> opportunity for abuse is tremendous. > >> > >> The lack of oversight of someone with a potentially > >> undetectable lethal weapon is utterly appauling. > >> > >> Arthur > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com > >> The most personalized portal on the Web! > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing > >> list radsafe@radlab.nl > >> > >> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have > > > read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be > >> found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >> > >> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe > >> and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > >> > > > > > >+++++++++++++++++++ > >"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and > >never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell > >Holmes, Jr. > > > >-- John > >John Jacobus, MS > >Certified Health Physicist > >e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________ > >Yahoo! Sports > >Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football > >http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com > >_______________________________________________ > >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and > >understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > >http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other > >settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > > -- > > > **** > Paul Lavely > Radiation Safety Officer > Environment, Health & Safety > UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-1150 > Tel: (510) 643-7976 > Fax: (510) 643-9495 > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From gstanford at aya.yale.edu Sat Jun 25 07:42:45 2005 From: gstanford at aya.yale.edu (George Stanford) Date: Sat Jun 25 08:00:02 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched uranium missing Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050625002759.033ef428@mail.comcast.net> The story about the missing 1.7 mg of uranium made my day -- the ludicrous over-reaction by officialdom and the Associated Press. The missing uranium was completely harmless, obviously -- enough to make speck about 15 mils in diameter (less than 1/2 mm).. Number of such "neutron-detecting devices" you'd need to collect to make a bomb? At least 10 million -- and much more if the enrichment is not 100%, Well, I guess the Associated Press is correct -- 1.7 milligrams is definitely not enough to make a bomb. But it must have been a really, really slow news day. And they slighted the real story -- the preposterous news that officials ordered a "thorough investigation" and even sent inspectors. Thanks for the day-brightener. George Stanford ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 07:40 PM 6/24/2005, Sandy Perle wrote: Minute amount of enriched uranium missing from nuclear power plant in Japan TOKYO (AP) - A small amount of enriched uranium - not enough to make a bomb - has gone missing from a nuclear power plant in central Japan, the Science Ministry said Friday. Officials have been unable to locate a neutron-detecting device containing 1.7 milligrams of enriched uranium at the No. 3 reactor at Takahama nuclear power plant in Fukui prefecture (state) about 320 kilometers (200 miles) west of Tokyo, the ministry said in a statement. The amount missing is too small to make a bomb, a ministry official said on condition of anonymity. The missing uranium is not radioactive enough to pose a threat to humans, the official said. The device, used to measure the level of neutrons in the reactor, was found to be missing Friday afternoon during an inspection of the nuclear fuel inventory at the plant, which is operated by Kansai Electric Power Co. The whereabouts of the uranium was last confirmed on July 6, 2004, during a previous inspection of the plant's inventory, the statement said. Officials have ordered Kansai Electric to conduct a thorough investigation and were set to send ministry inspectors to the plant on Saturday, the ministry said. Another plant run by Kansai Electric, also in Fukui, was the scene of Japan's deadliest-ever nuclear-plant accident last August. In that incident, a corroded cooling pipe carrying boiling water and superheated steam burst at a plant in nearby Mihama, killing five workers. No radiation was released in that accident. Kansai Electric later admitted that the pipe had not been inspected since 1996. It is being investigated on suspicion of negligence leading to death. The government has been eager to push nuclear power to meet the energy needs of resource-poor Japan, but public trust has been deeply shaken by a series of safety violations, reactor malfunctions and accidents in the nuclear energy industry. Japan's 52 nuclear reactors supply 35 percent of the country's electricity. The government wants to build 11 new plants and raised electricity output to nearly 40 percent of the national supply by 2010. Fukui lies about 323 kilometers (202 miles) west of Tokyo. ------------------ From farbersa at optonline.net Sat Jun 25 10:53:36 2005 From: farbersa at optonline.net (farbersa@optonline.net) Date: Sat Jun 25 10:53:45 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched uranium missing Message-ID: <369a36369404.369404369a36@optonline.net> Hi all: The comment by George Stanford reminded me of a quote attributed to George Bernard Shaw: "A newspaper is an institution that can't tell the difference between a bicycle accident and the collapse of a civilization." Things haven't changed much in 100 years. Stewart Farber ----- Original Message ----- From: George Stanford Date: Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:42 am Subject: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched uranium missing > > The story about the missing 1.7 mg of uranium > made my day -- the ludicrous over-reaction by > officialdom and the Associated Press. The > missing uranium was completely harmless, > obviously -- enough to make speck about > 15 mils in diameter (less than 1/2 mm).. > > Number of such "neutron-detecting devices" you'd > need to collect to make a bomb? At least 10 million > -- and much more if the enrichment is not 100%, > > Well, I guess the Associated Press is correct -- 1.7 > milligrams is definitely not enough to make a bomb. > > But it must have been a really, really slow news day. > > And they slighted the real story -- the preposterous > news that officials ordered a "thorough investigation" > and even sent inspectors. > > Thanks for the day-brightener. > > George Stanford > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > At 07:40 PM 6/24/2005, Sandy Perle wrote: > > Minute amount of enriched uranium missing from nuclear power plant in > Japan > > TOKYO (AP) - A small amount of enriched uranium - not enough to make > a bomb - has gone missing from a nuclear power plant in central > Japan, the Science Ministry said Friday. > From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Sat Jun 25 21:32:56 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Sat Jun 25 21:33:07 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050625193257.24768.qmail@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Paul, Thanks for your comments. Sorry to hear about your son's misadventure in Radiology. (I wonder how they get those happy children in Pig-a-stat pictures.) I believe that some European countries now require patient dose record. --- Paul Lavely wrote: > John, > > I missed the intentional part. > > >What mechanisims are in place to prevent Medical > Radiological Techs > >from intentionally or unintentionally overexposing > their patients to > >X-rays? > > I looked only +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Sat Jun 25 21:51:06 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Sat Jun 25 21:51:17 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight In-Reply-To: <42BCC9C8.7060606@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20050625195107.53122.qmail@web54308.mail.yahoo.com> Celia, About 20 years ago, radiology departments did track exam repeat rates, e.g., film too dark, too light, motion, collimation, etc. Our error rate was ALWAYS less than 5%. With digital imaging, it is harder to see the errors. But technologist do make mistakes. --- Celia wrote: > I have to make a few comments on this topic and this > statement that was made - "I cannot imagine why a > technologist would overdose a patient." > I don't think Arthur's comments are that outrageous. +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Sat Jun 25 22:23:32 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Sat Jun 25 22:23:42 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched uranium missing In-Reply-To: <369a36369404.369404369a36@optonline.net> Message-ID: <20050625202332.91884.qmail@web54301.mail.yahoo.com> And how would you conpare the reporting of this story to the non-stop reporting of the Michael Jackson trial? --- farbersa@optonline.net wrote: > Hi all: > > The comment by George Stanford reminded me of a > quote attributed to George Bernard Shaw: > "A newspaper is an institution that can't tell the > difference between a bicycle accident and the > collapse of a civilization." > > Things haven't changed much in 100 years. > > Stewart Farber > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: George Stanford A few short years ago, noone could *fathom* that a bunch of airline passengers and a few airline pilots would collude to intentionally fly airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Are you telling me that the over 200,000 Homeland Security Personnel (and all the leaders who set the current security policy) are simply in need of the "help of a trained counselor?" Art _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! From maurysis at ev1.net Sun Jun 26 15:40:26 2005 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Sun Jun 26 15:40:33 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight In-Reply-To: <20050624222703.2FF80109EF0@xprdmailfe1.nwk.excite.com> References: <20050624222703.2FF80109EF0@xprdmailfe1.nwk.excite.com> Message-ID: <42BEB04A.60606@ev1.net> Consider the potential if, say, a mere 5,000 of those 200,000 Home Sec people could have been hired as observer/spotters along the US borders. And consider the service that the Shoe Bomber might have performed for us if he had concealed the bomb in his shorts instead of his shoe heel .... The resulting humorous perspective could have worked wonders! Cheers, Maury&Dog (maurysis@ev1.net) ============= A wrote: >A few short years ago, no one could *fathom* that a bunch of airline passengers and a few airline pilots would collude to intentionally fly airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. > >Are you telling me that the over 200,000 Homeland Security Personnel (and all the leaders who set the current security policy) are simply in need of the "help of a trained counselor?" > >Art > > > From BLHamrick at aol.com Sun Jun 26 15:43:47 2005 From: BLHamrick at aol.com (BLHamrick@aol.com) Date: Sun Jun 26 15:44:05 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access Message-ID: In a message dated 6/24/2005 6:59:37 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, wesvanpelt@att.net writes: Well, I was glad to see the NRC restoring its ADAMS database. The bad news is that there seems to be no materials licenses or license applications available. Several years ago you could download a pdf file of any license issued by the NRC. It seems that is still no longer possible. Does anyone have the same or different experience? It is the same experience for everyone. I do not believe the NRC will be restoring the license documents. It's a shame, in my opinion, but it is likely the information will not be readily available again, in the name of security. Barbara "They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin From Robert.Young at state.tn.us Sun Jun 26 17:49:36 2005 From: Robert.Young at state.tn.us (Robert Young) Date: Sun Jun 26 17:50:22 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access Message-ID: Yes, I was glad to see some documents re-appear, however, I still have a gripe. I would like to know why a Radioactive Material (RAM) License is sensitive. This is an official document issued by an official US Govt. Agency. An application well maybe, because there may be description(s) or procedures, processes, etc., but not the license. When a company requests Reciprocity and they give out a complete license copy, it would seem to me that they might be releasing "sensitive" documents. NRC had an ADAMS user group of which I am a member, however, they have not had more than one or two conference calls since this access control started. This would seem the place to have a productive discussion of how to secure access, while still allowing those with a (al beit limited) need to know access to license documents. Since this removal of documents started, I have seen an amendment to a Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) license posted on the NRC's ADAMS, however, it was half blacked out like some super secret document which might relate to "Area 51", or something. Yet at the same time, I cannot get a copy of a portable gauge license (which NRC issued) via ADAMS. It seems to me that if they put the cover letter on ADAMS which says that the license is attached to the letter, this would also tell a terrorist that RAM is at a site and from the facility's name the terrorist could deduce what type material might be present at a facility. Lets face it, this whole removal of documents idea is NRC's knee-jerk reaction to the news story that appeared on NBC (I think) about a year or so ago. The Organization of Agreement States (OAS) and the CRCPD had a conference call sometime ago where this ADAMS access issue was discussed, but from what I remember, NRC indicated it would be far to difficult to give the States access other than the General Public's access. The truth is that a terrorist could still get all the RAM they need to make a "dirty bomb". I will agree that it might be a tad more difficult, but since these terrorists are dedicated enough to commit suicide, I don't think a little more red tape is going to hinder them very much. Robert Young These represent my personal comments and not those of my employer. >>> 06/26/05 8:43 AM >>> In a message dated 6/24/2005 6:59:37 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, wesvanpelt@att.net writes: Well, I was glad to see the NRC restoring its ADAMS database. The bad news is that there seems to be no materials licenses or license applications available. Several years ago you could download a pdf file of any license issued by the NRC. It seems that is still no longer possible. Does anyone have the same or different experience? It is the same experience for everyone. I do not believe the NRC will be restoring the license documents. It's a shame, in my opinion, but it is likely the information will not be readily available again, in the name of security. Barbara "They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From syd.levine at mindspring.com Sun Jun 26 19:16:59 2005 From: syd.levine at mindspring.com (Syd H. Levine) Date: Sun Jun 26 19:17:29 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access References: Message-ID: <00cb01c57a72$def3d7b0$0100a8c0@House> I am giving away no secrets that every large hospital, most well loggers, and all radiographers have RAM. Hiding licenses from public view, especially if other reference is made to the licensed facility, accomplishes very little. What I truly do not understands is why the sealed source registry information has been taken off the web. Any chance that will be restored? It is insane that not even licensees can access this information. Agreement state regulatory officials have apparently also been told not to release any such information. This is simply nutz. Syd H. Levine AnaLog Services, Inc. Phone: 270-276-5671 Telefax: 270-276-5588 E-mail: analog@logwell.com URL: www.logwell.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Young" To: ; ; ; Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access > Yes, I was glad to see some documents re-appear, however, I still have a > gripe. > > I would like to know why a Radioactive Material (RAM) License is > sensitive. This is an official document issued by an official US Govt. > Agency. An application well maybe, because there may be description(s) > or procedures, processes, etc., but not the license. When a company > requests Reciprocity and they give out a complete license copy, it would > seem to me that they might be releasing "sensitive" documents. NRC had > an ADAMS user group of which I am a member, however, they have not had > more than one or two conference calls since this access control started. > This would seem the place to have a productive discussion of how to > secure access, while still allowing those with a (al beit limited) need > to know access to license documents. Since this removal of documents > started, I have seen an amendment to a Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) > license posted on the NRC's ADAMS, however, it was half blacked out like > some super secret document which might relate to "Area 51", or > something. Yet at the same time, I cannot get a copy of a portable gauge > license (which NRC issued) via ADAMS. > > It seems to me that if they put the cover letter on ADAMS which says > that the license is attached to the letter, this would also tell a > terrorist that RAM is at a site and from the facility's name the > terrorist could deduce what type material might be present at a > facility. > > Lets face it, this whole removal of documents idea is NRC's knee-jerk > reaction to the news story that appeared on NBC (I think) about a year > or so ago. The Organization of Agreement States (OAS) and the CRCPD had > a conference call sometime ago where this ADAMS access issue was > discussed, but from what I remember, NRC indicated it would be far to > difficult to give the States access other than the General Public's > access. The truth is that a terrorist could still get all the RAM they > need to make a "dirty bomb". I will agree that it might be a tad more > difficult, but since these terrorists are dedicated enough to commit > suicide, I don't think a little more red tape is going to hinder them > very much. > > Robert Young > > These represent my personal comments and not those of my employer. > >>>> 06/26/05 8:43 AM >>> > > In a message dated 6/24/2005 6:59:37 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > wesvanpelt@att.net writes: > > Well, I was glad to see the NRC restoring its ADAMS database. The bad > news > is that there seems to be no materials licenses or license applications > available. > > Several years ago you could download a pdf file of any license issued > by the > NRC. It seems that is still no longer possible. > > Does anyone have the same or different experience? > > > > It is the same experience for everyone. I do not believe the NRC will > be > restoring the license documents. It's a shame, in my opinion, but it is > likely > the information will not be readily available again, in the name of > security. > > Barbara > > "They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > > safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list > radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From james at bovik.org Sun Jun 26 22:34:54 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Sun Jun 26 22:35:14 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access Message-ID: <42BF116E.4060908@bovik.org> If you need, or you think there is a public need, for government document access, you can file a Freedom of Information Act request: http://www.rcfp.org/foi_letter/generate.php If you use that template, then your letter will request the reasons that the information is not being released. If you think there is a more important reason that it should be released, then you can file suit in U.S. District Court. If you win, your fees are covered. If you think there is a chance that you might not win, then try to get an attorney to represent you "pro bono" (for free) -- i.e., go through your County Bar Association's directory phoning and asking whether they could use a Freedom of Information Act case for pro bono work, or use the form you get with this URL: http://legalrecords.findlaw.com/ss/search_results_exp.jsp?ch=LP&legaltopic=1&legalissue=112&search=exp&law=lawyer except plug in your location and use "First Amendment Law" instead of "Constitutional Law" for your first pass. Don't forget to ask for referrals if they don't need any pro bono work. Or, you can file in propria persona (without a lawyer) in which case you really should study these resources first: Nolo Press self-representation FAQ: http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/75864481-C7EE-4427-A9F16A1254455EA4/catID/8F965511-320B-429E-AFF92326E148C549/104/308/214/FAQ/ Pertinent Nolo Press books: http://www.isbn.nu/0-87337-908-X http://www.isbn.nu/1-4133-0178-9 http://www.isbn.nu/1-4133-0058-8 Federal Court Rules of Procedure: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/overview.htm Federal Court Forms: http://forms.lp.findlaw.com/map.html (click location, "US District Court," "Civil," The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press -- www.rcfp.org -- might agree to help for free, too, if you can find a reporter who wants to write a story about something that the NRC decided (in an "abundance of caution," probably) to withhold which would be a greater benefit health and safety more if it were available. Frankly, I can see why they don't want to release records of licensees, who are likely to have addresses near vulnerable storage facilities for The sealed source registry database is also a threat to the extent that existing sources with legitimate purposes could be used to mask the presence of restricted materials. However, I am not certain whether that concern outweighs the benefit of the health professionals' community having access to it. That's probably something that the NRC isn't going to think about until there's an accident that could have been avoided if the database had been public. Perhaps the NRC could be persuaded to provide free NukAlerts or Geiger counters if they wish to keep the sealed source registry database sealed. There is only one way to find out. Sincerely, James Salsman From syd.levine at mindspring.com Mon Jun 27 07:49:32 2005 From: syd.levine at mindspring.com (Syd H. Levine) Date: Mon Jun 27 07:49:50 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access References: <42BF116E.4060908@bovik.org> Message-ID: <00d801c57adb$ffc7fc50$0100a8c0@House> As usual, you do not have a clue what you are talking about. It is a waste of time trying to use the FOIA to obtain licensing or sealed source information from NRC. They have crafted a clever way to use one of the existing exemptions in the FOIA that is iron clad to prevent disclosure. If you were a licensee, and not just a know-nothing loud mouth, you would already know about this from recent NRC mailings (all of which say on their face they are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA as sensitive material). If they could use a pro bono case? How exactly do you imagine that works? Lawyers are not required to do pro bono work, but some firms do a bit of it from time to time. I have done a number of pro se FOIA appeals, and even took a different pro se case all the way to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. And incidentally, the first level of appeal of a denied FOIA request is usually administrative within the agency at issue. James, your posts are tiresome, usually wrong, and always unscientific. Syd H. Levine AnaLog Services, Inc. Phone: 270-276-5671 Telefax: 270-276-5588 E-mail: analog@logwell.com URL: www.logwell.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Salsman" To: ; Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access > If you need, or you think there is a public need, for government > document access, you can file a Freedom of Information Act request: > > http://www.rcfp.org/foi_letter/generate.php > > If you use that template, then your letter will request the reasons > that the information is not being released. If you think there is > a more important reason that it should be released, then you can > file suit in U.S. District Court. If you win, your fees are covered. > > If you think there is a chance that you might not win, then try to > get an attorney to represent you "pro bono" (for free) -- i.e., go > through your County Bar Association's directory phoning and asking > whether they could use a Freedom of Information Act case for pro > bono work, or use the form you get with this URL: > http://legalrecords.findlaw.com/ss/search_results_exp.jsp?ch=LP&legaltopic=1&legalissue=112&search=exp&law=lawyer > except plug in your location and use "First Amendment Law" instead > of "Constitutional Law" for your first pass. Don't forget to ask > for referrals if they don't need any pro bono work. Or, you can > file in propria persona (without a lawyer) in which case you really > should study these resources first: > > Nolo Press self-representation FAQ: > http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/75864481-C7EE-4427-A9F16A1254455EA4/catID/8F965511-320B-429E-AFF92326E148C549/104/308/214/FAQ/ > > Pertinent Nolo Press books: > http://www.isbn.nu/0-87337-908-X > http://www.isbn.nu/1-4133-0178-9 > http://www.isbn.nu/1-4133-0058-8 > > Federal Court Rules of Procedure: > http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/overview.htm > > Federal Court Forms: > http://forms.lp.findlaw.com/map.html > (click location, "US District Court," "Civil," > > The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press -- www.rcfp.org -- > might agree to help for free, too, if you can find a reporter who > wants to write a story about something that the NRC decided (in an > "abundance of caution," probably) to withhold which would be a > greater benefit health and safety more if it were available. > > Frankly, I can see why they don't want to release records of > licensees, who are likely to have addresses near vulnerable > storage facilities for > > The sealed source registry database is also a threat to the extent > that existing sources with legitimate purposes could be used to > mask the presence of restricted materials. However, I am not > certain whether that concern outweighs the benefit of the health > professionals' community having access to it. That's probably > something that the NRC isn't going to think about until there's > an accident that could have been avoided if the database had > been public. Perhaps the NRC could be persuaded to provide free > NukAlerts or Geiger counters if they wish to keep the sealed > source registry database sealed. There is only one way to find out. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > > > From jkuperus at anazaohealth.com Mon Jun 27 14:10:34 2005 From: jkuperus at anazaohealth.com (John Kuperus) Date: Mon Jun 27 14:10:48 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access Message-ID: All, Without comment I would like to make everyone aware of the Petition For Rulemaking submitted by James Salsman to the NRC. http://thefederalregister.com/d.p/2005-06-15-05-11799 Please respond to the NRC's request for comments. Thank you, John Kuperus AnazaoHealth -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Syd H. Levine Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 1:50 AM To: James Salsman; radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access As usual, you do not have a clue what you are talking about. It is a waste of time trying to use the FOIA to obtain licensing or sealed source information from NRC. They have crafted a clever way to use one of the existing exemptions in the FOIA that is iron clad to prevent disclosure. If you were a licensee, and not just a know-nothing loud mouth, you would already know about this from recent NRC mailings (all of which say on their face they are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA as sensitive material). If they could use a pro bono case? How exactly do you imagine that works? Lawyers are not required to do pro bono work, but some firms do a bit of it from time to time. I have done a number of pro se FOIA appeals, and even took a different pro se case all the way to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. And incidentally, the first level of appeal of a denied FOIA request is usually administrative within the agency at issue. James, your posts are tiresome, usually wrong, and always unscientific. Syd H. Levine AnaLog Services, Inc. Phone: 270-276-5671 Telefax: 270-276-5588 E-mail: analog@logwell.com URL: www.logwell.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Salsman" To: ; Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access > If you need, or you think there is a public need, for government > document access, you can file a Freedom of Information Act request: > > http://www.rcfp.org/foi_letter/generate.php > > If you use that template, then your letter will request the reasons > that the information is not being released. If you think there is > a more important reason that it should be released, then you can > file suit in U.S. District Court. If you win, your fees are covered. > > If you think there is a chance that you might not win, then try to > get an attorney to represent you "pro bono" (for free) -- i.e., go > through your County Bar Association's directory phoning and asking > whether they could use a Freedom of Information Act case for pro > bono work, or use the form you get with this URL: > http://legalrecords.findlaw.com/ss/search_results_exp.jsp?ch=LP&legaltop ic=1&legalissue=112&search=exp&law=lawyer > except plug in your location and use "First Amendment Law" instead > of "Constitutional Law" for your first pass. Don't forget to ask > for referrals if they don't need any pro bono work. Or, you can > file in propria persona (without a lawyer) in which case you really > should study these resources first: > > Nolo Press self-representation FAQ: > http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/75864481-C7EE-4427-A9F16A125445 5EA4/catID/8F965511-320B-429E-AFF92326E148C549/104/308/214/FAQ/ > > Pertinent Nolo Press books: > http://www.isbn.nu/0-87337-908-X > http://www.isbn.nu/1-4133-0178-9 > http://www.isbn.nu/1-4133-0058-8 > > Federal Court Rules of Procedure: > http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/overview.htm > > Federal Court Forms: > http://forms.lp.findlaw.com/map.html > (click location, "US District Court," "Civil," > > The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press -- www.rcfp.org -- > might agree to help for free, too, if you can find a reporter who > wants to write a story about something that the NRC decided (in an > "abundance of caution," probably) to withhold which would be a > greater benefit health and safety more if it were available. > > Frankly, I can see why they don't want to release records of > licensees, who are likely to have addresses near vulnerable > storage facilities for > > The sealed source registry database is also a threat to the extent > that existing sources with legitimate purposes could be used to > mask the presence of restricted materials. However, I am not > certain whether that concern outweighs the benefit of the health > professionals' community having access to it. That's probably > something that the NRC isn't going to think about until there's > an accident that could have been avoided if the database had > been public. Perhaps the NRC could be persuaded to provide free > NukAlerts or Geiger counters if they wish to keep the sealed > source registry database sealed. There is only one way to find out. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > > > _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ This email transmission and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this transmission to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return email and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. From danny.mcclung at louisville.edu Mon Jun 27 14:50:34 2005 From: danny.mcclung at louisville.edu (Danny K McClung) Date: Mon Jun 27 14:51:12 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: A Force Field for Astronauts Message-ID: An interesting possibility! >>> NASA Science News 06/25/05 12:12 AM >>> NASA Science News for June 24, 2005 Scientists are reviving an old but wild idea to protect astronauts from space radiation. FULL STORY at http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/24jun_electrostatics.htm?list170039 Check out our RSS feed at http://science.nasa.gov/rss.xml! You are currently subscribed to snglist as: danny.mcclung@louisville.edu. This is a free service. To unsubscribe click here: http://lyris.msfc.nasa.gov/u?id=170039R&n=T&l=snglist or send a blank email to leave-snglist-170039R@lyris.msfc.nasa.gov From k.merritt at larc.nasa.gov Mon Jun 27 14:52:11 2005 From: k.merritt at larc.nasa.gov (Kim Merritt) Date: Mon Jun 27 14:52:21 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.0.2.20050627083146.03738968@pop.larc.nasa.gov> Most most recent copy of the Nuclear Licensing Reports has a discussion about the return of ADAMS. The documents that have been put back are the ones that have been reviewed and vetted for security. The license documents are still undergoing the process. How quickly everyone jumps on the bandwagon without bothering to actually look for an explanation. As for why would the licenses be sensitive. Gee, maybe because they give the addresses and storage locations for (potentially) large quantities of radioactive material. Kim Merritt, CLSO Radiation/Laser Safety Officer Mainthia Technologies MS 305 NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA (757)864-3210 office (757)864-9449 fax mailto:k.merritt@larc.nasa.gov This message does not represent the official position of the US Government or NASA. From frank.helk at nis-ingenieure.de Mon Jun 27 15:51:24 2005 From: frank.helk at nis-ingenieure.de (Frank Helk) Date: Mon Jun 27 15:51:38 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Gamma emissions of Co-60 ? Message-ID: Hi folks, The german TV station n-tv runs a poll about nuclear power on http://www.n-tv.de/541367.html I encourage anybody to participate .... For those not familiar with the german laguage ... the question is (freely translated): "Do you think that the remaining lifetime of the german NPPs should be extended ?" and it is related to the german red-renn legislation that allows the german NPPs to produce only a limited remaining amount of electricity before the final shutdown, regardless of age, safety or technical fitness. Possible answers are "Ja" (Yes, extend it) "Nein" (No, let them as they're now) With best greetings Frank From frank.helk at nis-ingenieure.de Mon Jun 27 16:01:46 2005 From: frank.helk at nis-ingenieure.de (Frank Helk) Date: Mon Jun 27 16:01:56 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NPPs in Germany: n-tv poll Message-ID: Hi folks, The german TV station n-tv runs a poll about nuclear power on http://www.n-tv.de/541367.html I encourage anybody to participate .... For those not familiar with the german laguage ... the question is (freely translated): "Do you think that the remaining lifetime of the german NPPs should be extended ?" and it is related to the german red-renn legislation that allows the german NPPs to produce only a limited remaining amount of electricity before the final shutdown, regardless of age, safety or technical fitness. Possible answers are "Ja" (Yes, extend it) "Nein" (No, let them as they're now) With best greetings Frank From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Mon Jun 27 17:28:56 2005 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Mon Jun 27 17:29:13 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight In-Reply-To: <20050623230329.A7982109E90@xprdmailfe1.nwk.excite.com> Message-ID: <003601c57b2c$f1ba19d0$bf572fd5@pc1> Mr. A, Do I understand correctly that you imply that uncertified technicians work in performing radiological procedures? So this is a question of oversight and supervisors. They are responsible. They are also be paid more. Can you explain to me, how uncertified technicians can work in US hospitals? Blame everything else to your authorities it they do. Any kitchen knive on sale anywhere can be used to kill somebody - and has been used in many millions of cases. Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] Im > Auftrag von A > Gesendet: Freitag, 24. Juni 2005 01:03 > An: radsafe@radlab.nl > Betreff: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight > > > Of all the millions of radiological procedures performed by the many > thousands of (possibly uncertified) technicians, is no one concerned that > foul play is not occurring? > > Imagine for a moment that one tech decided not to be upstanding and > trustworthy, for whatever reason... > From FloodJR at nv.doe.gov Mon Jun 27 17:32:39 2005 From: FloodJR at nv.doe.gov (Flood, John) Date: Mon Jun 27 17:33:29 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched uranium missing Message-ID: <080ED373C3C4D711997E00508B604C5A316146@nts-exchpo-nt.nv.doe.gov> The fundamental problems are two-fold: 1) in a free enterprise economy with a free press, bad news is big business, and 2) supply and demand - we have more reporters than we have news, hence we have a news industry that cannot survive financially on the naturally-occurring supply of news. Bob Flood Nevada Test Site -----Original Message----- From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:24 PM To: farbersa@optonline.net; George Stanford Cc: radsafe Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched uranium missing And how would you conpare the reporting of this story to the non-stop reporting of the Michael Jackson trial? --- farbersa@optonline.net wrote: > Hi all: > > The comment by George Stanford reminded me of a > quote attributed to George Bernard Shaw: > "A newspaper is an institution that can't tell the > difference between a bicycle accident and the > collapse of a civilization." > > Things haven't changed much in 100 years. > > Stewart Farber > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: George Stanford Message-ID: <20050627155748.65190.qmail@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> Boy, and I thought I was cynical. --- "Flood, John" wrote: > The fundamental problems are two-fold: 1) in a free > enterprise economy with > a free press, bad news is big business, and 2) > supply and demand - we have > more reporters than we have news, hence we have a > news industry that cannot > survive financially on the naturally-occurring > supply of news. > > Bob Flood > Nevada Test Site > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@yahoo.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:24 PM > To: farbersa@optonline.net; George Stanford > Cc: radsafe > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched > uranium missing > > And how would you conpare the reporting of this > story > to the non-stop reporting of the Michael Jackson > trial? > . . . +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From FloodJR at nv.doe.gov Mon Jun 27 18:11:53 2005 From: FloodJR at nv.doe.gov (Flood, John) Date: Mon Jun 27 18:12:38 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched uranium missing Message-ID: <080ED373C3C4D711997E00508B604C5A316149@nts-exchpo-nt.nv.doe.gov> You may be right :^) -----Original Message----- From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:58 AM To: Flood, John; farbersa@optonline.net; George Stanford Cc: radsafe Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched uranium missing Boy, and I thought I was cynical. --- "Flood, John" wrote: > The fundamental problems are two-fold: 1) in a free > enterprise economy with > a free press, bad news is big business, and 2) > supply and demand - we have > more reporters than we have news, hence we have a > news industry that cannot > survive financially on the naturally-occurring > supply of news. > > Bob Flood > Nevada Test Site > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@yahoo.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:24 PM > To: farbersa@optonline.net; George Stanford > Cc: radsafe > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched > uranium missing > > And how would you conpare the reporting of this > story > to the non-stop reporting of the Michael Jackson > trial? > . . . +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Mon Jun 27 18:16:19 2005 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Mon Jun 27 18:16:37 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] NPPs in Germany: n-tv poll In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004701c57b33$90c0cc30$bf572fd5@pc1> So we are now going by TV-stations poll to decide whether NPP are necessary? Though I am quite familiar since more than 60 years with the German language I would not vote for that idiotic poll. Is nuclear and energy policy done now by TV-polls? I discourage anybody to take part in such an idiotic "poll", whether on any European or any USA-station. Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] Im > Auftrag von Frank Helk > Gesendet: Montag, 27. Juni 2005 16:02 > An: radsafe@radlab.nl > Betreff: [ RadSafe ] NPPs in Germany: n-tv poll > > Hi folks, > > The german TV station n-tv runs a poll about nuclear power on > > http://www.n-tv.de/541367.html > > I encourage anybody to participate .... > > For those not familiar with the german laguage ... the question is (freely > translated): > > "Do you think that the remaining lifetime of the german NPPs should be > extended ?" > > and it is related to the german red-renn legislation that allows the > german NPPs to > produce only a limited remaining amount of electricity before the final > shutdown, > regardless of age, safety or technical fitness. > > Possible answers are > > "Ja" (Yes, extend it) > "Nein" (No, let them as they're now) > > With best greetings > > Frank > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From joseroze at netvision.net.il Mon Jun 27 18:28:33 2005 From: joseroze at netvision.net.il (Jose Julio Rozental) Date: Mon Jun 27 18:28:50 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight References: <003601c57b2c$f1ba19d0$bf572fd5@pc1> Message-ID: <003401c57b35$42b61700$ceec17ac@userqzqxd9wnct> Dear Franz, Another point unbelievable to understand was "The tech refused to allow me (or anyone else) to be in the room with the child while the x-ray was taken. The kid was hurt, scared, and in a place (and alone) that he had never been before." I can't understand this in developing countries, how to accept this situation and decision by a tech in USA? Jose Julio Rozental joseroze@netvision.net.il Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franz Sch?nhofer" To: ; Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 6:28 PM Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight > Mr. A, > > Do I understand correctly that you imply that uncertified technicians work > in performing radiological procedures? So this is a question of oversight > and supervisors. They are responsible. They are also be paid more. > > Can you explain to me, how uncertified technicians can work in US hospitals? > Blame everything else to your authorities it they do. > > Any kitchen knive on sale anywhere can be used to kill somebody - and has > been used in many millions of cases. > > Franz > > Franz Schoenhofer > PhD, MR iR > Habicherg. 31/7 > A-1160 Vienna > AUSTRIA > phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] Im > > Auftrag von A > > Gesendet: Freitag, 24. Juni 2005 01:03 > > An: radsafe@radlab.nl > > Betreff: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight > > > > > > Of all the millions of radiological procedures performed by the many > > thousands of (possibly uncertified) technicians, is no one concerned that > > foul play is not occurring? > > > > Imagine for a moment that one tech decided not to be upstanding and > > trustworthy, for whatever reason... > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Mon Jun 27 20:09:20 2005 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Mon Jun 27 20:09:42 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] WG: RadChem 2006 Message-ID: <005001c57b43$5a521040$bf572fd5@pc1> Dear collegues, I would like to draw your attention to the 15th Radiochemical Conference to take place in Marianske Lazne, Czech Republic, 23-28 April 2006. The last one at Marianske Lazne I attended was a scientifically very successful one. The area of the conference venue is great with a lot of important historical places in the vicinity. The Czech Republic has since the historic changes in politics changed its face completely, being a Western country as any adjacent one. Science has always been at its height and still is. Therefore you may expect both highly scientific events combined with a very interesting and historic surrounding. Please check the conference website http://www.fjfi.cvut.cz/radchem. Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone -43-0699-1168-1319 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: liste de distribution pour les RADIOCHIMISTEs [mailto:RADCH-L@in2p3.fr] Im Auftrag von John Jan Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. Juni 2005 21:59 An: RADCH-L@in2p3.fr Betreff: RadChem 2006 Dear colleagues, I'd like to draw your attention to RadChem 2006 - the 15th Radiochemical Conference, that will take place on 23 - 28 April 2006 in Marianske Lazne, Czech Republic. Please check the attached First Circular or the website http://www.fjfi.cvut.cz/radchem. The scope of the 15th Radiochemical Conference will cover most aspects of nuclear- and radiochemistry including, but not limited to - Radionuclides in the Environment, Radioecology - Nuclear Analytical Methods - Chemistry of Actinide and Trans-actinide Elements - Radiation Chemistry - Production and Application of Radionuclides - Separation Methods, Speciation - Chemistry of Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Radiochemical Problems in Nuclear Waste Management - Nuclear Methods in Medicine, Radiopharmaceuticals and Radiodiagnostics, Labelled Compounds The full peer-reviewed papers (meeting the criteria of the journal) will be published as conference proceedings in a special volume of an international scientific journal (to be selected). We looking forward to welcoming you in Marianske Lazne. Sincerely Jan John Chair, RadChem 2006 Organising Committee <<1CIRK050626.pdf>> <> From sandyfl at earthlink.net Mon Jun 27 22:17:12 2005 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon Jun 27 22:18:40 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] US Plans To Restart Its Own Plutonium Production - NYT Message-ID: <42BFFC58.19223.11EC415@localhost> Index: US Plans To Restart Its Own Plutonium Production - NYT Japanese, French bids to host nuclear fusion reactor Inspectors examine Japan nuclear plant over missing enriched uranium Fifteen countries participate in dirty bomb exercise in Vienna ========================================== US Plans To Restart Its Own Plutonium Production - NYT NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- The Bush administration is planning the government's first production of plutonium 238 since the cold war, The New York Times reports in its Monday edition. According to the report, federal officials say the program would produce 150 kilograms over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory. Officials say the program could cost $1.5 billion and generate more than 50,000 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste. The Times said that one speck of the substance, valued as a power source, can cause cancer. Project managers say that most of, if not all, of the new plutonium is intended for secret missions and declined to divulge details, the newspaper reported. The report said that in the past, the substance has powered espionage devices. "The real reason we're starting production is for national security," Timothy A. Frazier, head of radioisotope power systems at the U.S. Department of Energy, told the paper in a recent interview. Today, the U.S. makes no plutonium 238 and instead relies on aging stockpiles or imports from Russia, the report said. By agreement with the Russians, it can't use the imported material - about 35 pounds since the end of the cold war - for military purposes. With its domestic stockpile running low, the report said, Washington now wants to resume production. Though it last made plutonium 238 in the 1980s at the government's Savannah River plant in South Carolina, it now wants to move such work to the Idaho National Laboratory and consolidate all the nation's plutonium 238 operations there, including efforts now at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. ------------------- Decision due on Japanese, French bids to host multibillion dollar nuclear fusion reactor MOSCOW (AP) - A decision is expected on Tuesday on rival bids from Japan and France to host a multibillion dollar nuclear fusion reactor, an official in Russia's Atomic Energy Agency said. The six parties involved in the project - Japan, the United States, South Korea, Russia, China and the European Union - are meeting in Moscow to discuss where it should be built, officials said. France is seen as the front-runner. Japanese newspaper reports have said that Tokyo is prepared to give up on hosting the US$13 billion (10.8 billion) International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project in return for a bigger research and operations role in the project. However, Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said earlier this month that negotiations were continuing up to the wire. The ITER plant aims to show that nuclear fusion presents a vast, safe source of energy that can wean the world off pollution-producing fossil fuels. Nuclear fusion produces no greenhouse gas emissions and only low levels of radioactive waste. The six parties have been divided over where to locate the plant. Japan, the United States and South Korea want it at Rokkasho in northern Japan. Russia, China and the European Union want it at Cadarache, in southern France. -------------------- Government inspectors examine Japan nuclear plant over missing enriched uranium TOKYO (AP) - Government inspectors on Saturday examined a nuclear power plant in central Japan hoping to discover how a small amount of enriched uranium disappeared from storage there, as the plants operators scrambled to track down the missing substance, officials said. The amount lost does not contain enough radioactivity to pose a threat to humans or to make a bomb, a Science Ministry official Kunimi Yoshida said. The incident surfaced Friday when plant officials notified the ministry that they had been unable to locate a finger-size neutron- detecting device that contained 1.7 milligrams of enriched uranium at the No. 3 reactor at Takahama nuclear power plant in Fukui prefecture (state), about 32 kilometers (200 miles) west of Tokyo. The ministry has ordered the plant operator, Kansai Electric Power Co., to find the missing device, which is used to measure the level of neutrons in the reactor. Plant workers discovered the instrument was missing during an inspection of the plant's nuclear fuel inventory. The whereabouts of the uranium were last known on July 6, 2004, during a previous inspection of the plant's inventory, the ministry said. On Saturday, two officials from the Science Ministry inspected the plant as Kansai Electric officials and workers scrambled to find the missing object. The inspectors also interviewed plant officials and inspected their documents, Yoshida said. Officials didn't know what caused the loss, Yoshida said. "We must find the thing first." The trouble comes less than a year after another plant run by Kansai Electric, also in Fukui, caused Japan's deadliest-ever nuclear-plant accident. In August, a corroded cooling pipe carrying boiling water and superheated steam burst at a plant in nearby Mihama, killing five workers. No radiation was released in that accident. Kansai Electric later acknowledged that the part of the pipe had not been inspected since the plant was built in 1976. It is being investigated on suspicion of negligence causing death. The government has been aggressively pushing nuclear power to meet the energy needs of resource-poor Japan, but public trust has been deeply shaken by a series of safety violations, reactor malfunctions and accidents in the nuclear energy industry. Japan's 52 nuclear reactors supply 35 percent of the country's electricity. The government wants to build 11 new plants and raised electricity output to nearly 40 percent of the national supply by 2010. ------------------ Fifteen countries participate in dirty bomb exercise in Vienna VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Soldiers and experts from 15 countries participated in an exercise Thursday that simulated the explosion of a dirty bomb in Vienna, the Defense Ministry said. The exercise was the culmination of a weeklong training session carried out under NATO's Partnership for Peace Program, said Gerhard Ruhm, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry. About 130 soldiers and experts from 15 countries, including the United States, Germany, France, Britain and Italy, took part in the exercise. About 40 people portraying victims wounded by the dirty bomb - a weapon that uses conventional explosives to spread radiation - also participated in the simulation. Austria joined NATO's Partnership for Peace program in 1995. The alliance created the program in 1994 to establish cooperation with neutral and former communist countries. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From james at bovik.org Mon Jun 27 22:55:40 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Mon Jun 27 22:55:57 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners Message-ID: <42C067CC.7060605@bovik.org> http://villagevoice.com/news/0525,lombardi,65154,5.html Stirring Up the Toxic Dust They turned Uncle Sam's uranium into atom bombs, and the work made them sick. Now they've got a new champion -- Hillary Clinton by Kristen Lombardi The Village Voice June 21st, 2005 Eugene Ruchalski probably never dreamed he'd say anything nice about Hillary Clinton. A lifelong Republican, he served five proud terms as the highway superintendent in his hometown of Boston Hills, a Buffalo suburb. At 68, and set in his ways, he admits to entertaining conservative ideas about what he calls "women in politics." Yet lately, his opinion of New York's junior senator has been changing. He counts himself among a select group of Buffalo-area residents for whom Clinton has become a crusader. Ruchalski's father was one of thousands of employees exposed to radiation at 36 mills in western New York. In his case, it was at the local Bethlehem Steel plant, now defunct, in the late 1940s and early '50s. Many of those workers got sick. Now, when Ruchalski meets with the others, he hears about all the work the senator is doing to bring his family justice. "If she can deliver for us," he says, somewhat sheepishly, "she can guarantee herself a vote." His. Anyone wondering why Senator Clinton has gotten so popular upstate, with positive numbers pushing 70 percent, need look no further than the Bethlehem Steel families. Their lives changed for good in 2000, when the federal government admitted that workers in 350 mills nationwide had "rolled" uranium to make nuclear bombs?but never knew it. On lunch breaks at Bethlehem, they blithely sat around on piles of the radioactive stuff, eating their sandwiches and inhaling a deadly dust. Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, created by Congress, retired workers who got sick, or their survivors, could apply for a $150,000 payment from the government. To date, 1,218 Bethlehem families have filed claims with the Labor Department and the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety, the two agencies that administer the program. The old Bethlehem Steel plants?located in South Buffalo, Lackawanna, and Hamburg?have drawn the most applications not only from New York, but nationwide. The response has not been great. Of the current claims, only half, or 632, have made it through the first screening for eligibility. Of those, up to 383 claims?more than 60 percent?have been denied. "Obviously, the program is just not working for these people," says Dan Utech, Clinton's main staffer on the issue. This month, his boss plans to file a bill that would make it easier for the families to collect. "The senator believes it took too long for the government to accept responsibility in the first place. Now, it's getting to be ridiculous." Clinton's role as champion for nuclear-weapons workers may come as a surprise to those who remember her old ties to the dreaded Wal-Mart. As Arkansas first lady, she served six years on the board of the union-busting behemoth, notorious during her directorship for alleged child labor abuses. Wal-Mart has since become corporate enemy number one, causing some Democrats to fear that Clinton's onetime affiliation will scare away the labor vote if she makes a bid for the White House in 2008. But if her advocacy on Bethlehem Steel is any indication, Clinton is now trying to build up a solid record of defending worker rights?particularly when it comes to health and safety. Jim Melius, of the Laborers Union, in Albany, has followed the plight of these families for years now, and he finds her work on their behalf telling. "It says that she's willing to stand up and fight and try to fix the problem." And because of her new bill, Melius adds, "The story with Bethlehem isn't over." That story began in 1949, at the start of the Cold War, when the military was racing to make the atomic bomb. Mills and foundries dominated the Buffalo landscape, yet one company reigned supreme: Bethlehem Steel. Its facilities spanned three miles along Lake Erie, with state-of-the-art equipment and a workforce of 22,000. "Everybody worked at the steel mill," says Frank Panasuk, a retired detective from Hamburg. A large man with huge, square-framed glasses, he drove to the old Bethlehem complex on a recent Wednesday and along the way listed relatives who worked there?his father, his father's five brothers, his mother's five brothers. Most of the 1,700-acre site sits vacant and weeded-over today, abandoned when the company went belly-up in the '80s. But the bar mill where workers rolled steel and, for four years during the Cold War, uranium, still stands. Now a galvanizing outfit, the building looks tired, its rusted siding barely hanging on. Driving on a utility road, Panasuk spots some workers toiling over a fire. "Boy," he says, taking in the scene of power lines and railroad tracks, "this brings back memories." Not all of those memories are good. Panasuk's dad died in 1987, just weeks after developing stomach cancer. Before that, he suffered from colon cancer. He spent his entire career at the mill, serving as a metal inspector for 35 years. The tenure did Panasuk's dad proud; it has haunted his family. Ever since 2000, when the government came clean about its atomic-weapons program, people have had to come to grips with the weight of a decades-old secret at Bethlehem. From 1949 to 1952, the mill did contract work for the country's fledgling nuclear arsenal, rolling billets of uranium into rods for reactors. But few knew the true nature of the project?and those who did had to keep quiet. All the while, workers handled toxic material. They pressed it, shaped it, ground it, and squeezed it, unwittingly. Former employees and their families have had to face the reality that the government exposed them to some of the most dangerous matter on earth?"basically poisoned these folks," as one Clinton aide puts it. At Bethlehem, as opposed to other facilities, the uranium was especially deadly. According to former workers and government officials, the company did nothing to control radiation levels. Employees had no body suits to protect them, no badges to monitor exposure. They didn't even have masks. Worse still, they had to endure the constant presence of uranium dust. "For years I inhaled that dust," relays Russ Early, 81, a Vernon Downs resident with a shock of white hair and a feisty disposition. A cancer survivor, he operated a crane in the bar mill, laboring there for 43 years, soaking up the dust. It blurred his vision and scratched his throat. It settled on his food and in his coffee. It got so hot it could burn a blister on the skin the size of a silver dollar. Now that the Bethlehem secret has been revealed, the dust and its sting finally make sense to folks. And so do other things. Like all the talk in the late '40s and early '50s of a "government project" at the mill. Or the unexplained sightings of guards watching over the rods. Or the army trucks coming and going on weekends. And then there are all those cancer deaths. Edwin Walker, a genial 71-year-old from Lackawanna, held a Bethlehem post as a bricklayer from 1951 to 1954, during the uranium project. He was one of 15 men in the so-called "hot gang," the group that patched holes in furnaces. Today, only he and one other are still living. Everyone else was killed by cancer. Nor have Walker and his colleague avoided the disease?he has bladder cancer, his friend colon. "I consider that more than a coincidence," he says. "We are victims of the government's secrecy." Walker and dozens more say the government is victimizing them again?this time, by refusing to compensate them for their illnesses. When the agencies set up the compensation program, they presented the claims process as simple. Bethlehem workers, or their survivors, could apply if they worked at the mill during the uranium rollings and if they got certain cancers?22 in all, including of the lungs, skin, colon, and pancreas. In return, they'd get $150,000. But it turns out the company didn't keep records of which employees worked at the bar mill during the uranium procedures, and the records it did keep are incomplete. As a result, says Larry Elliott of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the agency has had to develop a formula, called "dose reconstruction," to evaluate claims. It's a complicated model, but here's the gist: NIOSH uses software to predict a person's risk for developing cancer, based on exposure. It takes into account such factors as the radiation type, where the person worked, how long shifts lasted, and so on. NIOSH relies on the few existing records about the uranium work at Bethlehem, Elliott says, and the formula skews toward the inhalation of uranium dust, thus putting a premium on lung and kidney cancer, and leukemia. Critics argue the formula is flawed. They say NIOSH doesn't have enough information to accurately determine individual dosages. When first creating the formula, officials failed to interview retired employees or to visit the bar mill. Instead, they substituted data from a neighboring mill, in Lockport, New York. "The model assumes that you can be precise about an individual's exposure," says Melius, of the Laborers Union, who sits on an advisory board overseeing the process. But because of the minimal records, he explains, "It's an almost impossible task to piece together." The result? A lot of people have had their claims unfairly denied?at least, that's what Early thinks. He handled the uranium, and has suffered from rectal cancer for 17 years. In 1987, he underwent surgery in which three tumors, his appendix, and his gall bladder were removed. Yet he's been denied compensation?twice. "They said it wasn't bad enough," he says, referring to his estimated dosage. Lifting his Hawaiian shirt and poking at his colostomy bag, he asks, "See this? You call that not bad enough?" The denials have left people angry and bitter. Workers see colleagues with lung cancer getting paid, while they, diagnosed with other types, are not. They tell tales of employees stationed in buildings far from the bar mill receiving checks, all because they have lung or kidney cancer. "It's wrong," says Walker, who has filed three claims, all denied. "It's unjust, and the government should own up to it." To that end, the families have formed two groups?the Bethlehem Steel Radiation Victims and Survivors, and the Bethlehem Steel Claimants Action Group? numbering some 300 members in total. They've taken their fight public, protesting outside government offices, writing letters, and making themselves a general pain for bureaucrats. Last year they scored big when a 199-page audit found serious flaws in NIOSH's system for evaluating their claims. NIOSH's Elliott admits the audit has forced the agency to review its ways. But he also insists the process is working. "We've built a solid method," he argues, adding that none of the 300-plus claims denied have been overturned on appeal. "We're confident that we are not missing any claimant who really deserves to be compensated." Clinton's office has heard that line before, repeatedly, since the senator first took up this crusade in 2003. She got involved after her Buffalo staff began fielding calls from constituents and she sent an aide to the Bethlehem claimants' meetings. In December of that year she met them herself at a special gathering in Hamburg. There, she listened to 50 or so people recounting their experiences. People like Theresa Sweeney, of Lackawanna, whose husband died of pancreatic cancer, and who explained the trouble she'd endured when administrators challenged the legitimacy of her 30-year marriage. Or Cindy Mellody, of South Buffalo, whose dad died of "probable lung carcinoma," and who told of the "huge injustice" of having her claim denied. Her father served in World War II, got captured, escaped, and hid in the jungle for two years; he returned to New York only to get a job at a plant where the government exposed him to uranium. "These stories hit you up front," says the senator's western New York regional director. The staffer says the senator was so outraged she charged the Buffalo office with documenting as many cases as possible. It now has a stack of about 200. Early on, Clinton tried pressuring agency heads to fix problems. In May 2003, for example, she pushed for a provision calling for NIOSH and the Labor Department to file a report with Congress, explaining the delays in processing claims at Bethlehem, as well as other New York facilities. The measure passed; the report has yet to be drafted. Then came the letters. In December 2003, she wrote to President Bush, calling on him to implement long-ignored legal requirements that would help Bethlehem claimants. "The longer the Administration delays," she wrote, the "more workers will die without having their claim resolved." Twelve months later, she issued a statement demanding NIOSH review its methods. The NIOSH audit, she said, "clearly indicates that claims that have been denied need to be re-evaluated." Last January, she wrote to the Labor Department, along with Senator Chuck Schumer and western New York representatives, demanding that Labor officials search harder for uranium records at Bethlehem. "She has been dogged in her oversight," says Richard Miller of the Government Accountability Project in Washington, D.C., which tracks the program. "It's not simply say one thing and do another with her." These days, Clinton has come to believe that the program is broken, her staff says, and that legislation is the only way to fix it. She's set to introduce a bill that would make it easier for Bethlehem claimants to get paid. The measure would set minimum standards for records needed to evaluate claims. Under the bill, employees who did nuclear-weapons work at plants without such records?as is the case at Bethlehem?would join a "special exposure cohort." That's a term in the original law, reserved for workers from facilities where the government lacks basic information and thus cannot reconstruct dosages. In effect, the bill would order the government to presume that workers in this status got cancer from radiation exposure and to pay them. Because the measure mandates spending, Clinton's staff says, it won't be attractive during a time of huge deficits and tax cuts. U.S. Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, of Niagara Falls, will co-sponsor a House companion bill to Clinton's legislation, and she predicts resistance. Yet Slaughter, who has worked on this issue since the mid '90s, sees two advantages. For one, its proposals amount to what she calls "basic decency." For another, Hillary Clinton is on it. As she explains, "I don't know what we'd do without her, because she performs." For now, all the Bethlehem families can do is wait. Many, like Dorothy Jaworski of West Seneca, see the senator's bill as the only source of hope, the only way they'll be able to collect what they deserve. Jaworski got a December 2003 letter from the Labor Department announcing she qualified for the $150,000 because her late husband "had sustained leukemia and pancreatic cancer in the performance of his duty," only to have the offer rescinded, an apparent "mistake," five months later. If it weren't for Senator Clinton, Jaworski says, "this whole issue would be dead." No matter what happens to the bill, she appreciates the senator standing up for her. She believes she'd have a check in hand if Hillary Clinton were in charge. "With Hillary on our side," Jaworski says, "I have faith." From davee at med-phys.com Mon Jun 27 23:11:56 2005 From: davee at med-phys.com (David Englehart) Date: Mon Jun 27 23:12:01 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight References: <003601c57b2c$f1ba19d0$bf572fd5@pc1> Message-ID: <004701c57b5c$d9b32090$4fd4230a@DGE> Franz, Most states in the US have licensing requirements for radiological technologists, some have no requirements. For example, the state I live in has absolutely no requirements for anyone who pushes the on-button for a general x-ray exam. Only mammography techs are regulated. However, hospitals, imaging centers, and all other x-ray providers who care about the quality of the exam being performed usually require ARRT certification and that the techs continue to meet the experience and education requirements over time. Its strictly voluntary to require such training and credentialing. A lot of x-ray providers in Missouri, such as general practitioners and chiropracters train their own personnel how they see fit to take x-rays. Sincerely, David Englehart M.S. Medical Physicist Medical Physics Services Ltd. Forest Park Hospital Radiation Oncology Dept. 6150 Oakland Ave. St. Louis, Mo. 63139 tel: 314-768-3608 fax: 314-768-5646 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franz Sch?nhofer" To: ; Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:28 AM Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight Mr. A, Do I understand correctly that you imply that uncertified technicians work in performing radiological procedures? So this is a question of oversight and supervisors. They are responsible. They are also be paid more. Can you explain to me, how uncertified technicians can work in US hospitals? Blame everything else to your authorities it they do. Any kitchen knive on sale anywhere can be used to kill somebody - and has been used in many millions of cases. Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] Im > Auftrag von A > Gesendet: Freitag, 24. Juni 2005 01:03 > An: radsafe@radlab.nl > Betreff: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight > > > Of all the millions of radiological procedures performed by the many > thousands of (possibly uncertified) technicians, is no one concerned that > foul play is not occurring? > > Imagine for a moment that one tech decided not to be upstanding and > trustworthy, for whatever reason... > _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From hflong at pacbell.net Tue Jun 28 00:46:30 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Tue Jun 28 00:46:40 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners In-Reply-To: <42C067CC.7060605@bovik.org> Message-ID: <20050627224630.86634.qmail@web81811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The selected cancers in U processors exploited by Hillary (below) is inconsistent with the better documented data in "Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer" Chen, Luan et al (Taiwan Apts) www.aapsonline.org Journal American Physicians and Surgeons spring 2004 pp6-10. Howard Long James Salsman wrote: http://villagevoice.com/news/0525,lombardi,65154,5.html Stirring Up the Toxic Dust They turned Uncle Sam's uranium into atom bombs, and the work made them sick. Now they've got a new champion -- Hillary Clinton by Kristen Lombardi The Village Voice June 21st, 2005 Eugene Ruchalski probably never dreamed he'd say anything nice about Hillary Clinton. A lifelong Republican, he served five proud terms as the highway superintendent in his hometown of Boston Hills, a Buffalo suburb. At 68, and set in his ways, he admits to entertaining conservative ideas about what he calls "women in politics." Yet lately, his opinion of New York's junior senator has been changing. He counts himself among a select group of Buffalo-area residents for whom Clinton has become a crusader. Ruchalski's father was one of thousands of employees exposed to radiation at 36 mills in western New York. In his case, it was at the local Bethlehem Steel plant, now defunct, in the late 1940s and early '50s. Many of those workers got sick. Now, when Ruchalski meets with the others, he hears about all the work the senator is doing to bring his family justice. "If she can deliver for us," he says, somewhat sheepishly, "she can guarantee herself a vote." His. Anyone wondering why Senator Clinton has gotten so popular upstate, with positive numbers pushing 70 percent, need look no further than the Bethlehem Steel families. Their lives changed for good in 2000, when the federal government admitted that workers in 350 mills nationwide had "rolled" uranium to make nuclear bombs?but never knew it. On lunch breaks at Bethlehem, they blithely sat around on piles of the radioactive stuff, eating their sandwiches and inhaling a deadly dust. Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, created by Congress, retired workers who got sick, or their survivors, could apply for a $150,000 payment from the government. To date, 1,218 Bethlehem families have filed claims with the Labor Department and the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety, the two agencies that administer the program. The old Bethlehem Steel plants?located in South Buffalo, Lackawanna, and Hamburg?have drawn the most applications not only from New York, but nationwide. The response has not been great. Of the current claims, only half, or 632, have made it through the first screening for eligibility. Of those, up to 383 claims?more than 60 percent?have been denied. "Obviously, the program is just not working for these people," says Dan Utech, Clinton's main staffer on the issue. This month, his boss plans to file a bill that would make it easier for the families to collect. "The senator believes it took too long for the government to accept responsibility in the first place. Now, it's getting to be ridiculous." Clinton's role as champion for nuclear-weapons workers may come as a surprise to those who remember her old ties to the dreaded Wal-Mart. As Arkansas first lady, she served six years on the board of the union-busting behemoth, notorious during her directorship for alleged child labor abuses. Wal-Mart has since become corporate enemy number one, causing some Democrats to fear that Clinton's onetime affiliation will scare away the labor vote if she makes a bid for the White House in 2008. But if her advocacy on Bethlehem Steel is any indication, Clinton is now trying to build up a solid record of defending worker rights?particularly when it comes to health and safety. Jim Melius, of the Laborers Union, in Albany, has followed the plight of these families for years now, and he finds her work on their behalf telling. "It says that she's willing to stand up and fight and try to fix the problem." And because of her new bill, Melius adds, "The story with Bethlehem isn't over." That story began in 1949, at the start of the Cold War, when the military was racing to make the atomic bomb. Mills and foundries dominated the Buffalo landscape, yet one company reigned supreme: Bethlehem Steel. Its facilities spanned three miles along Lake Erie, with state-of-the-art equipment and a workforce of 22,000. "Everybody worked at the steel mill," says Frank Panasuk, a retired detective from Hamburg. A large man with huge, square-framed glasses, he drove to the old Bethlehem complex on a recent Wednesday and along the way listed relatives who worked there?his father, his father's five brothers, his mother's five brothers. Most of the 1,700-acre site sits vacant and weeded-over today, abandoned when the company went belly-up in the '80s. But the bar mill where workers rolled steel and, for four years during the Cold War, uranium, still stands. Now a galvanizing outfit, the building looks tired, its rusted siding barely hanging on. Driving on a utility road, Panasuk spots some workers toiling over a fire. "Boy," he says, taking in the scene of power lines and railroad tracks, "this brings back memories." Not all of those memories are good. Panasuk's dad died in 1987, just weeks after developing stomach cancer. Before that, he suffered from colon cancer. He spent his entire career at the mill, serving as a metal inspector for 35 years. The tenure did Panasuk's dad proud; it has haunted his family. Ever since 2000, when the government came clean about its atomic-weapons program, people have had to come to grips with the weight of a decades-old secret at Bethlehem. From 1949 to 1952, the mill did contract work for the country's fledgling nuclear arsenal, rolling billets of uranium into rods for reactors. But few knew the true nature of the project?and those who did had to keep quiet. All the while, workers handled toxic material. They pressed it, shaped it, ground it, and squeezed it, unwittingly. Former employees and their families have had to face the reality that the government exposed them to some of the most dangerous matter on earth?"basically poisoned these folks," as one Clinton aide puts it. At Bethlehem, as opposed to other facilities, the uranium was especially deadly. According to former workers and government officials, the company did nothing to control radiation levels. Employees had no body suits to protect them, no badges to monitor exposure. They didn't even have masks. Worse still, they had to endure the constant presence of uranium dust. "For years I inhaled that dust," relays Russ Early, 81, a Vernon Downs resident with a shock of white hair and a feisty disposition. A cancer survivor, he operated a crane in the bar mill, laboring there for 43 years, soaking up the dust. It blurred his vision and scratched his throat. It settled on his food and in his coffee. It got so hot it could burn a blister on the skin the size of a silver dollar. Now that the Bethlehem secret has been revealed, the dust and its sting finally make sense to folks. And so do other things. Like all the talk in the late '40s and early '50s of a "government project" at the mill. Or the unexplained sightings of guards watching over the rods. Or the army trucks coming and going on weekends. And then there are all those cancer deaths. Edwin Walker, a genial 71-year-old from Lackawanna, held a Bethlehem post as a bricklayer from 1951 to 1954, during the uranium project. He was one of 15 men in the so-called "hot gang," the group that patched holes in furnaces. Today, only he and one other are still living. Everyone else was killed by cancer. Nor have Walker and his colleague avoided the disease?he has bladder cancer, his friend colon. "I consider that more than a coincidence," he says. "We are victims of the government's secrecy." Walker and dozens more say the government is victimizing them again?this time, by refusing to compensate them for their illnesses. When the agencies set up the compensation program, they presented the claims process as simple. Bethlehem workers, or their survivors, could apply if they worked at the mill during the uranium rollings and if they got certain cancers?22 in all, including of the lungs, skin, colon, and pancreas. In return, they'd get $150,000. But it turns out the company didn't keep records of which employees worked at the bar mill during the uranium procedures, and the records it did keep are incomplete. As a result, says Larry Elliott of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the agency has had to develop a formula, called "dose reconstruction," to evaluate claims. It's a complicated model, but here's the gist: NIOSH uses software to predict a person's risk for developing cancer, based on exposure. It takes into account such factors as the radiation type, where the person worked, how long shifts lasted, and so on. NIOSH relies on the few existing records about the uranium work at Bethlehem, Elliott says, and the formula skews toward the inhalation of uranium dust, thus putting a premium on lung and kidney cancer, and leukemia. Critics argue the formula is flawed. They say NIOSH doesn't have enough information to accurately determine individual dosages. When first creating the formula, officials failed to interview retired employees or to visit the bar mill. Instead, they substituted data from a neighboring mill, in Lockport, New York. "The model assumes that you can be precise about an individual's exposure," says Melius, of the Laborers Union, who sits on an advisory board overseeing the process. But because of the minimal records, he explains, "It's an almost impossible task to piece together." The result? A lot of people have had their claims unfairly denied?at least, that's what Early thinks. He handled the uranium, and has suffered from rectal cancer for 17 years. In 1987, he underwent surgery in which three tumors, his appendix, and his gall bladder were removed. Yet he's been denied compensation?twice. "They said it wasn't bad enough," he says, referring to his estimated dosage. Lifting his Hawaiian shirt and poking at his colostomy bag, he asks, "See this? You call that not bad enough?" The denials have left people angry and bitter. Workers see colleagues with lung cancer getting paid, while they, diagnosed with other types, are not. They tell tales of employees stationed in buildings far from the bar mill receiving checks, all because they have lung or kidney cancer. "It's wrong," says Walker, who has filed three claims, all denied. "It's unjust, and the government should own up to it." To that end, the families have formed two groups?the Bethlehem Steel Radiation Victims and Survivors, and the Bethlehem Steel Claimants Action Group? numbering some 300 members in total. They've taken their fight public, protesting outside government offices, writing letters, and making themselves a general pain for bureaucrats. Last year they scored big when a 199-page audit found serious flaws in NIOSH's system for evaluating their claims. NIOSH's Elliott admits the audit has forced the agency to review its ways. But he also insists the process is working. "We've built a solid method," he argues, adding that none of the 300-plus claims denied have been overturned on appeal. "We're confident that we are not missing any claimant who really deserves to be compensated." Clinton's office has heard that line before, repeatedly, since the senator first took up this crusade in 2003. She got involved after her Buffalo staff began fielding calls from constituents and she sent an aide to the Bethlehem claimants' meetings. In December of that year she met them herself at a special gathering in Hamburg. There, she listened to 50 or so people recounting their experiences. People like Theresa Sweeney, of Lackawanna, whose husband died of pancreatic cancer, and who explained the trouble she'd endured when administrators challenged the legitimacy of her 30-year marriage. Or Cindy Mellody, of South Buffalo, whose dad died of "probable lung carcinoma," and who told of the "huge injustice" of having her claim denied. Her father served in World War II, got captured, escaped, and hid in the jungle for two years; he returned to New York only to get a job at a plant where the government exposed him to uranium. "These stories hit you up front," says the senator's western New York regional director. The staffer says the senator was so outraged she charged the Buffalo office with documenting as many cases as possible. It now has a stack of about 200. Early on, Clinton tried pressuring agency heads to fix problems. In May 2003, for example, she pushed for a provision calling for NIOSH and the Labor Department to file a report with Congress, explaining the delays in processing claims at Bethlehem, as well as other New York facilities. The measure passed; the report has yet to be drafted. Then came the letters. In December 2003, she wrote to President Bush, calling on him to implement long-ignored legal requirements that would help Bethlehem claimants. "The longer the Administration delays," she wrote, the "more workers will die without having their claim resolved." Twelve months later, she issued a statement demanding NIOSH review its methods. The NIOSH audit, she said, "clearly indicates that claims that have been denied need to be re-evaluated." Last January, she wrote to the Labor Department, along with Senator Chuck Schumer and western New York representatives, demanding that Labor officials search harder for uranium records at Bethlehem. "She has been dogged in her oversight," says Richard Miller of the Government Accountability Project in Washington, D.C., which tracks the program. "It's not simply say one thing and do another with her." These days, Clinton has come to believe that the program is broken, her staff says, and that legislation is the only way to fix it. She's set to introduce a bill that would make it easier for Bethlehem claimants to get paid. The measure would set minimum standards for records needed to evaluate claims. Under the bill, employees who did nuclear-weapons work at plants without such records?as is the case at Bethlehem?would join a "special exposure cohort." That's a term in the original law, reserved for workers from facilities where the government lacks basic information and thus cannot reconstruct dosages. In effect, the bill would order the government to presume that workers in this status got cancer from radiation exposure and to pay them. Because the measure mandates spending, Clinton's staff says, it won't be attractive during a time of huge deficits and tax cuts. U.S. Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, of Niagara Falls, will co-sponsor a House companion bill to Clinton's legislation, and she predicts resistance. Yet Slaughter, who has worked on this issue since the mid '90s, sees two advantages. For one, its proposals amount to what she calls "basic decency." For another, Hillary Clinton is on it. As she explains, "I don't know what we'd do without her, because she performs." For now, all the Bethlehem families can do is wait. Many, like Dorothy Jaworski of West Seneca, see the senator's bill as the only source of hope, the only way they'll be able to collect what they deserve. Jaworski got a December 2003 letter from the Labor Department announcing she qualified for the $150,000 because her late husband "had sustained leukemia and pancreatic cancer in the performance of his duty," only to have the offer rescinded, an apparent "mistake," five months later. If it weren't for Senator Clinton, Jaworski says, "this whole issue would be dead." No matter what happens to the bill, she appreciates the senator standing up for her. She believes she'd have a check in hand if Hillary Clinton were in charge. "With Hillary on our side," Jaworski says, "I have faith." _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From james at bovik.org Tue Jun 28 08:19:32 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Tue Jun 28 08:19:55 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners In-Reply-To: <20050627224630.86634.qmail@web81811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050627224630.86634.qmail@web81811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42C0EBF4.3010403@bovik.org> Howard F. Long, M.D. wrote: > The selected cancers in U processors ... is inconsistent with > the better documented data in "Is Chronic Radiation an Effective > Prophylaxis Against Cancer" Chen, Luan et al (Taiwan Apts).... On the contrary, the Taiwan apartment-dwellers were not inhaling toxicants. Sincerely, James Salsman From frank.helk at nis-ingenieure.de Tue Jun 28 10:40:29 2005 From: frank.helk at nis-ingenieure.de (Frank Helk) Date: Tue Jun 28 10:40:40 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Decision for ITER location: Cadarache in France ! In-Reply-To: <004701c57b33$90c0cc30$bf572fd5@pc1> Message-ID: Dear radsafe readers, Just fresh from the news: The ITER project - the next big milestone on the way to nuclear fusion power - will be built at the Cadarache site in France. With best regards Frank From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Tue Jun 28 14:06:20 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue Jun 28 14:06:30 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners In-Reply-To: <20050627224630.86634.qmail@web81811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050628120620.97817.qmail@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Actually, there is a difference in the types of exposures, but I would certainly not expect you to understand that difference. The exposure in Taiwan was from external exposures. Uranium processing would involve internal contamination. It is like wearing a belt of welding rods that delivers an external dose, and eating the welding rods or breathting in the particles. Do you understand the difference? Try to. --- howard long wrote: > The selected cancers in U processors exploited by > Hillary (below) is inconsistent with the better > documented data in "Is Chronic Radiation an > Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer" Chen, Luan et > al (Taiwan Apts) www.aapsonline.org Journal > American Physicians and Surgeons spring 2004 pp6-10. > > Howard Long > > James Salsman wrote: > http://villagevoice.com/news/0525,lombardi,65154,5.html > > Stirring Up the Toxic Dust > > They turned Uncle Sam's uranium into atom bombs, and > the > work made them sick. Now they've got a new champion > -- > Hillary Clinton > > by Kristen Lombardi > The Village Voice > June 21st, 2005 > . . . +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From michael.g.stabin at Vanderbilt.Edu Tue Jun 28 14:13:45 2005 From: michael.g.stabin at Vanderbilt.Edu (Stabin, Michael) Date: Tue Jun 28 14:15:25 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched uranium missing Message-ID: Bob writ: "we have more reporters than we have news" I would just qualify that to say that "we have more reporters than we have news that people wish to hear about". Also the thrust of Stew's comments. We have 24 hour coverage of OJ Simpson, Scott Peterson and Michael Jackson while tribal wars change borders and governments on many continents, wholesale slaughters of ethnic groups continue until they reach some numerical value that warrants our attention, disease and famine affect the poor but not the rich in many places, and so on. There is plenty of news out there, but people simply don't have the stomach for the unpleasant news nor the intellectual stamina to listen long enough to understand the complexities that cause the changes in the world that we live in. "A speck of plutonium can cause cancer" and "everyone who worked at this plant deserves a sack of money because they worked around a radiation source" - this is easier to deal with, and far more fun. Reporters, on the whole, can probably understand and report on the real world more effectively than they do, but, like cocaine dealers, they are bound by the need to make profits and must feed the preferred habits of their users. If they don't, their competitors will. Mike Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences Vanderbilt University 1161 21st Avenue South Nashville, TN 37232-2675 Phone (615) 343-0068 Fax (615) 322-3764 Pager (615) 835-5153 e-mail michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu internet www.doseinfo-radar.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Flood, John Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:33 AM To: 'John Jacobus'; farbersa@optonline.net; George Stanford Cc: radsafe Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched uranium missing The fundamental problems are two-fold: 1) in a free enterprise economy with a free press, bad news is big business, and 2) supply and demand - we have more reporters than we have news, hence we have a news industry that cannot survive financially on the naturally-occurring supply of news. Bob Flood Nevada Test Site From maurysis at ev1.net Tue Jun 28 14:47:51 2005 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Tue Jun 28 14:47:55 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] New source of desired analyses Message-ID: <42C146F7.1030100@ev1.net> (Thanks to Charlie Cremer) Web Site Makes Gov't. Reports Available Associated Press, by Ted Bridis Original Article Posted By: verity - 6/27/2005 3:43:02 AM Post Reply WASHINGTON - A new Web site aims to make widely available to the public certain government reports about topics from terrorism to Social Security that congressional researchers prepare and distribute now only to lawmakers. The site -- www.opencrs.com -- links more than a half-dozen existing collections of nearly 8,000 reports from the Congressional Research Service and centrally indexes them. ________________ Cheers, Maury&Dog maurysis@ev1.net From rstrickert at signaturescience.com Tue Jun 28 14:49:52 2005 From: rstrickert at signaturescience.com (Strickert, Rick) Date: Tue Jun 28 14:50:59 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners Message-ID: <7D5C72A07835EB4085063AD8555F05DED2370C@ss-mail2.corp.signaturescience.com> > Now, when Ruchalski meets with the others, he hears about all the work the > senator is doing to bring his family justice. "If she can deliver for us," > he says, somewhat sheepishly, "she can guarantee herself a vote." His. The quintessential Faustian bargain. Rick Strickert Austin, TX From uniqueproducts at comcast.net Tue Jun 28 15:23:17 2005 From: uniqueproducts at comcast.net (Jay Caplan) Date: Tue Jun 28 15:20:05 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners References: <20050627224630.86634.qmail@web81811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <42C0EBF4.3010403@bovik.org> Message-ID: <007001c57be4$8c629cc0$6501a8c0@JAY> Is there any data of their rates of cancer compared to workers in other mills that didn't handle any U ? Jay Caplan ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Salsman" To: "howard long" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 1:19 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners > Howard F. Long, M.D. wrote: > > > The selected cancers in U processors ... is inconsistent with > > the better documented data in "Is Chronic Radiation an Effective > > Prophylaxis Against Cancer" Chen, Luan et al (Taiwan Apts).... > > On the contrary, the Taiwan apartment-dwellers were not inhaling > toxicants. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > > > > From Phil.Shaver at dshs.state.tx.us Tue Jun 28 15:41:59 2005 From: Phil.Shaver at dshs.state.tx.us (Phil Shaver) Date: Tue Jun 28 16:30:33 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] OSHA Request for data, information and comments Message-ID: <0561BCB8002CD411BB0B080009FE050306F31E32@TDHEXCHHQ08> Primarily for US of A subscribers. If this has previously been posted, I apologize for posting again. However, it has come to my attention that OSHA published a request for data, information and comments on occupational exposure to ionizing radiation in the May 3, 2005 issue of the Federal Register (FR, V. 70, No. 84, pp. 22828-22835). http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov /2005/pdf/05-8805.pdf Since OSHA exerts regulatory authority in areas where the NRC does not, this might be of interest, and some may find it beneficial to participate. Regards, Phil ******************************************* Philip Shaver, Chief Uranium Licensing Program Radiation Safety Licensing Branch Department of State Health Services 1100 W. 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756-3189 (512) 834-6688 extension 2210 phil.shaver@dshs.state.tx.us Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of the Department of State Health Services ******************************************* From Roy.Herren at med.va.gov Tue Jun 28 17:17:32 2005 From: Roy.Herren at med.va.gov (Roy.Herren@med.va.gov) Date: Tue Jun 28 17:19:12 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cancer related gene p53 not regulated as indicated by previous ti ssue culture research; results may be relevant to drug development Message-ID: <6884EB498415D411A71A0000F803A46811025534@VHASFCEXC1> http://www.salk.edu/news/releases/details.php?id=136 Cancer related gene p53 not regulated as indicated by previous tissue culture research; results may be relevant to drug development June 27, 2005 La Jolla, CA - The cellular cascade of molecular signals that instructs cells with fatally damaged DNA to self-destruct pivots on the p53 tumor suppressor gene. If p53 is inactivated, as it is in over half of all human cancers, checks and balances on cell growth fail to operate, and body cells start to accumulate mutations, which ultimately may lead to cancer. Not surprisingly, the regulation of this vital safeguard has been studied in great detail for many years but mainly in tissue culture, or in vitro, models. A new mouse model, created by scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, suggests that what researchers have learned about the regulation of p53 activity from in vitro studies may not be relevant to living, breathing organisms. The Salk scientists' findings are published in this week's online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Until now, scientists had assumed, based on studies in cultured cells, that p53 had to be modified by attaching chemical groups to specific sites on the protein to function normally in the body. The new research indicates that these modifications are not necessary to activate p53 under conditions of stress or to prevent p53 from throwing a wrench into the cell cycle machinery, when nothing is wrong. "The chemical modifications of the p53 protein that we thought were essential for its normal function may just fine-tune the activity of the protein under physiological conditions in a living organism, but they are not essential," explains lead investigator professor Geoffrey M. Wahl. "This new study focuses our attention on the network of regulators of p53 and how they are regulated." "This study caused a big shift in how we think about p53," explains Salk scientist and first author Kurt Krummel. "You have to look at all interacting partners because after all, modifications of p53 itself might not be so important as modifications of negative regulators and co-activators." Many chemotherapeutical drugs used to treat cancer exert their biological effects on tumor cells through activation of the p53 pathway. Having an accurate view of how p53 is regulated will allow the development of specific drugs that unleash the killing power of p53 by interfering with its negative regulators. Our cells are vulnerable to DNA breaks caused by UV light, ionizing radiation, toxic chemicals or other environmental damages. Unless promptly and properly repaired, these DNA breaks can let cell division spiral out of control, ultimately causing cancer. Under normal conditions, the p53 protein is very unstable and found only at very low levels in the cell. But when the cell senses that its DNA has been damaged, it slows down the degradation of p53, so that p53 protein levels can rise and initiate protective measures. When higher than normal levels of p53 tumor suppressor exist, there is enough p53 to bind to many regulatory sites in the cell's genome to activate the production of other proteins that will halt cell division if the DNA damage can be repaired. Or, if the damage is too severe for the breaks to be repaired, critical backup protection, also governed by the p53 tumor suppressor protein, kicks in. It initiates the process of programmed cell death, or apoptosis, which directs the cell to commit suicide, permanently removing the damaged DNA from the organism. Since the p53 protein is able to trigger such drastic action as cellular suicide, the cells of the body must ensure that the p53 protein is only activated when damage is sensed and that the protein is quickly degraded when it is not needed. Until now, many scientists thought that specific modifications on the easily accessible tail end, or C-terminus, of the p53 protein are crucial for both, timely degradation or activation. To explore the effects of these modifications in vivo, Salk scientists genetically engineered mice to produce a p53 protein with an altered C-terminus instead of the normal version. Previous tissue culture studies by several labs around the world indicated that tinkering with the tail end prevented the protein from being flagged for degradation or activation. Instead of accumulating in mouse cells and halting cell division in the genetically engineered mice, the altered p53 protein performed flawlessly: it was unstable when no DNA damage was present and was stable and fully functional when needed to halt the cycle cell to repair DNA damage or to induce apoptosis. "It came as a complete surprise. We even used a system that would have allowed us to switch on the modified p53 protein at will because we feared that the mice might not be viable and would die during early embryonic development," says Krummel. More detailed investigations revealed that the altered p53 protein still binds to Mdm2, one of the negative regulators of p53 that facilitate its degradation. When p53 is activated by DNA damage the same sites that are modified when the protein is slated for degradation, a different kind of chemical modification, so-called acetylation, takes place. But without acetylation, p53 functions just as well in mice, found the researchers. ### From dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com Tue Jun 28 17:44:20 2005 From: dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com (dckosloff@firstenergycorp.com) Date: Tue Jun 28 17:45:08 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners Message-ID: James Salsman wrote: >On the contrary, the Taiwan apartment-dwellers were not inhaling >toxicants. Of course they were inhaling toxicants, just as all people do. We just don't know which toxicants they were inhaling and how much they were inhaling. Also, according to the DU "poisoning" theories, the Bethlehem workers should have expressed the Gulf War Syndrome symptoms long before the Gulf War Syndrome symptoms were identified. By the time the Gulf War came around, the symptoms expressed by the Gulf War veterns should have been quickly noted to be the "Bethlehem Millworker Syndrome" symptoms. You may recall that the current DU activist assertion is that the non-cancer symptoms from uranium dust exposure would be evident long before any cancer symptoms would be observed. The non-cancer symptoms should also be expressed at a much higher rate than the cancer symptoms, if the cancer symptoms were ever expressed at all. In addition, the reporter's comment that "Many of those workers got sick" could be made regarding any group of workers or non-workers anywhere. Perhaps, Mr. Salsman's technical expertise will be helpful in explaining the reporter's claim that, "It got so hot it could burn a blister on the skin the size of a silver dollar." Sincerely, Don Kosloff ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Tue Jun 28 17:54:23 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue Jun 28 17:54:33 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cancer related gene p53 not regulated as indicated by previous ti ssue culture research; results may be relevant to drug development In-Reply-To: <6884EB498415D411A71A0000F803A46811025534@VHASFCEXC1> Message-ID: <20050628155423.70272.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> As I have said before, biology is not like physics. --- Roy.Herren@med.va.gov wrote: > http://www.salk.edu/news/releases/details.php?id=136 > > Cancer related gene p53 not regulated as indicated > by previous tissue > culture research; results may be relevant to drug > development > > June 27, 2005 > La Jolla, CA - The cellular cascade of molecular > signals that instructs > cells with fatally damaged DNA to self-destruct > pivots on the p53 tumor > suppressor gene. If p53 is inactivated, as it is in > over half of all human > cancers, checks and balances on cell growth fail to > operate, and body cells > start to accumulate mutations, which ultimately may > lead to cancer. Not > surprisingly, the regulation of this vital safeguard > has been studied in > great detail for many years but mainly in tissue > culture, or in vitro, > models. > . . . +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hflong at pacbell.net Tue Jun 28 18:33:46 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Tue Jun 28 18:33:57 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranium Inhalation Poisoning? Controls? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050628163346.89483.qmail@web81806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Inhalation toxin found to be most often causing cancer by Bruce Ames, UC Berkeley chemist (who wanted to pin down the dirty refinery and other industrial pollutants) - was pine resin in the air! Ames' studies (reported to a meeting of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness) showed, for foods, not the expected artificial colorings, preservatives and flavorings, but wine and beer to have 10x the risk of cancer from such other sources! Add tobacco and obesity to have real skepticism about a specific cancer being from U or anything else, especially when politically convenient. Cancer has been shown more frequent above 100rads -and less below 10 rads acute (bomb studies) with better evidence for cancer prevention than causation below 10 rad/year ( Taiwan Apts, Karbala, Canadian fluroscopy, British radiologists, NShipyard workers, more radon in USA counties with least lung cancer mortality, etc, etc). Like the witch-burners 300 years ago, who were convinced that witches caused the terrible weather, and the fearmongers of global winter (global warming? - same people!), the antinucs use mob psychology and scapegoats to hide their bad habits and ingnorance Howard Long dckosloff@firstenergycorp.com wrote: James Salsman wrote: >On the contrary, the Taiwan apartment-dwellers were not inhaling >toxicants. Of course they were inhaling toxicants, just as all people do. We just don't know which toxicants they were inhaling and how much they were inhaling. Also, according to the DU "poisoning" theories, the Bethlehem workers should have expressed the Gulf War Syndrome symptoms long before the Gulf War Syndrome symptoms were identified. By the time the Gulf War came around, the symptoms expressed by the Gulf War veterns should have been quickly noted to be the "Bethlehem Millworker Syndrome" symptoms. You may recall that the current DU activist assertion is that the non-cancer symptoms from uranium dust exposure would be evident long before any cancer symptoms would be observed. The non-cancer symptoms should also be expressed at a much higher rate than the cancer symptoms, if the cancer symptoms were ever expressed at all. In addition, the reporter's comment that "Many of those workers got sick" could be made regarding any group of workers or non-workers anywhere. Perhaps, Mr. Salsman's technical expertise will be helpful in explaining the reporter's claim that, "It got so hot it could burn a blister on the skin the size of a silver dollar." Sincerely, Don Kosloff ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. From neildm at id.doe.gov Tue Jun 28 18:36:26 2005 From: neildm at id.doe.gov (neildm@id.doe.gov) Date: Tue Jun 28 18:37:21 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight Message-ID: When my daughter was x-rayed as an infant, they told me before we came that I would be holding her during the exposure. (Heart murmur; turned out to be nothing of concern - she grew out of it). I taped a dosimeter to my hand out of curiosity; it registered nothing detectible. Dave Neil -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Jose Julio Rozental Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 10:58 PM To: Paul Lavely; John Jacobus Cc: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight "The tech refused to allow me (or anyone else) to be in the room with the child while the x-ray was taken. The kid was hurt, scared, and in a place (and alone) that he had never been before." Comment: I think about 6 years ago I wrote to Radsafers on conforters and visitors to support patients. Anyhow taking into account your above topic, the Basic Safety Standards, IAEA Safety Series 115, recommends, page 93: DOSE LIMITATION FOR COMFORTERS AND VISITORS OF PATIENTS* Dose limitation for comforters and visitors of patients II-9. The dose limits set out in this part shall not apply to comforters of patients, i.e., to individuals knowingly exposed while voluntarily helping (other than in their employment or occupation) in the care, support and comfort of patients undergoing medical diagnosis or treatment, or to visitors of such patients. However, the dose of any such comforter or visitor of patients shall be constrained so that it is unlikely that his or her dose will exceed 5 mSv during the period of a patient's diagnostic examination or treatment. The dose to children visiting patients who have ingested radioactive materials should be similarly constrained to less than 1 mSv. To those interested to go ahead, please look at the site http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1117_scr.pdf to download the Radiological Protection for Medical Exposure to Ionizing Radiation IAEA SAFETY GUIDE No. RS-G-1.5 Please look also at RADIATION SAFETY http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Reports/Anrep2002/radiation_safety.pdf Radiological Protection of Patients A Safety Guide on radiological protection for medical exposure to ionizing radiation, jointly sponsored by the Agency, PAHO and WHO, was published. It provides recommendations on how safety requirements can be applied to protect patients, comforters and visitors of patients against exposure to ionizing radiation in medical practice in compliance with the BSS. Specifically, recommendations cover the establishment of guidance levels for diagnostic medical exposures, acceptance testing processes for radiation equipment, calibration of radiotherapy units and the reporting of accidental medical exposures. As recommended by the 2001 M?laga conference on the radiological protection of patients in diagnostic and interventional radiology, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy, the Agency formulated an action plan based on the findings of the conference. The Board of Governors approved the plan in September 2002, and implementation is proceeding. Areas highlighted in the action plan include education and training, information exchange, provision of guidance and assistance to Member States in the implementation of safety standards, research on radiation doses in new technologies, and the collection and dissemination of information on accidental medical exposure. Jose Julio Rozental joseroze@netvision.net.il Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Lavely" To: "John Jacobus" Cc: Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:17 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Medical Radiological Technician Oversight > John, > > I missed the intentional part. > > >What mechanisims are in place to prevent Medical Radiological Techs > >from intentionally or unintentionally overexposing their patients to > >X-rays? > > I looked only to the issue of unnecessary exposures. My experience > was the rad tech who took 7 sequential x-rays of my 2 year old son > that "didn't come our right." At that point, I intervened and said > that no more x-rays would be taken until the problem was determined > and addressed. In this case it was movement. The tech refused to > allow me (or anyone else) to be in the room with the child while the > x-ray was taken. The kid was hurt, scared, and in a place (and alone) > that he had never been before. I knew that my dose would be in the 1 > to 2 mrem range, but it took the hospital's head of radiology > involvement to get that permission. Additionally the struggle and > delay did not help. > > However, you are clearly correct - why. There was a popular fiction > book (maybe by Cook) that had a HMO provider killing off selected > patients with a BIG rad source in a ridiculously small shield under a > special hospital bed. Perhaps questions such as this (or irrational > fears) are spawned by the fiction around us on TV, in movies, and in > print. > > It seems that hospitals offer a variety of "potentially undetectable > lethal weapon(s)." A person could choose from pain med overdose, > equipment failure, insulin dosing, succinylcholine, administration of > a med a person with an extreme allergic (they are noted on the > charts). and the list goes on. Would they be found out? Perhaps and > perhaps not. The death of a very sick patient of apparent natureal > causes would no necessitate calling in Quincy or CSI. However, why > would someone do these things and why would they select radiation as > their weapon? > > I have had a couple of aspiring writers ask me about the use of > radiation as a poison and I have told them about time, distance, > shielding, and access to the material. A "dirty bomb" story sounds > good; however, it is far from practical. For most people large > amounts of radiation or radioactive materials is hard to get' but, > your ACE hardware store can provide a variety of poisons. > > By the way, a California legislator is proposing a law that would > require tracking of patient medical exposures and that MDs consider > the history in making a decision as to tests. > > Paul > > >I cannot imagine why a technologist would overdose a > >patient. Do you have a reason? Are looking to sue > >someone? > > > >--- A wrote: > > > >> > >> Of all the millions of radiological procedures > >> performed by the many thousands of (possibly > >> uncertified) technicians, is no one concerned that > >> foul play is not occurring? > >> > >> Imagine for a moment that one tech decided not to be > >> upstanding and trustworthy, for whatever reason... > >> > >> They could easily overdose a patient and suffer > >> absolutely no risk of being caught or exposed. If > >> they are careful to keep the dose under a certain > >> level, there would be no immediate evidence. The > >> harm would come many months or even years later, and > >> even then, there would be no way to link the harm to > >> them. Most patients are woefully unaware of how > >> many exposures (and of what duration) any radiologic > >> procedure requires. I understand that exposure > >> records are not kept and that patient dosimetry is > >> not required. It is also likely that a technician > >> see the same patient over their lifetime. The > >> opportunity for abuse is tremendous. > >> > >> The lack of oversight of someone with a potentially > >> undetectable lethal weapon is utterly appauling. > >> > >> Arthur > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com > >> The most personalized portal on the Web! > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing > >> list radsafe@radlab.nl > >> > >> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have > > > read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be > >> found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >> > >> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe > >> and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > >> > > > > > >+++++++++++++++++++ > >"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and > >never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell > >Holmes, Jr. > > > >-- John > >John Jacobus, MS > >Certified Health Physicist > >e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________ > >Yahoo! Sports > >Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football > >http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com > >_______________________________________________ > >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and > >understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > >http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other > >settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > > -- > > > **** > Paul Lavely > Radiation Safety Officer > Environment, Health & Safety > UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-1150 > Tel: (510) 643-7976 > Fax: (510) 643-9495 > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From bobcherry at cox.net Tue Jun 28 18:49:49 2005 From: bobcherry at cox.net (bobcherry@cox.net) Date: Tue Jun 28 18:50:10 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners Message-ID: <20050628164950.IETQ10612.lakermmtao12.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> You know that if health physicists were a disreputable group (and I maintain that we aren't), then we would concede all of the activists' alarms and hysteria about severe radiation hazards at levels of ionizing and nonionizing radiation exposure less than 10 or so times above, at, or below environmental levels. Then we could increase our salaries, membership in our profession, span of control, prestige, number of academic and leadership appointments, number and value of research grants, etc., accordingly. Yet we don't concede the activists' "points," because we prefer to tell the truth. So we remain as we are: responsible scientists, with our self-respect and scientific reputations intact, who provide our best advice to our employers and to the public. Bob > > From: dckosloff@firstenergycorp.com > Date: 2005/06/28 Tue AM 11:44:20 EDT > To: James Salsman > CC: radsafe@radlab.nl, radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners > > James Salsman wrote: > > >On the contrary, the Taiwan apartment-dwellers were not inhaling > >toxicants. > > Of course they were inhaling toxicants, just as all people do. We just > don't know which toxicants they were inhaling and how much they were > inhaling. > > Also, according to the DU "poisoning" theories, the Bethlehem workers > should have expressed the Gulf War Syndrome symptoms long before the Gulf > War Syndrome symptoms were identified. By the time the Gulf War came > around, the symptoms expressed by the Gulf War veterns should have been > quickly noted to be the "Bethlehem Millworker Syndrome" symptoms. You may > recall that the current DU activist assertion is that the non-cancer > symptoms from uranium dust exposure would be evident long before any cancer > symptoms would be observed. The non-cancer symptoms should also be > expressed at a much higher rate than the cancer symptoms, if the cancer > symptoms were ever expressed at all. > > In addition, the reporter's comment that "Many of those workers got sick" > could be made regarding any group of workers or non-workers anywhere. > > Perhaps, Mr. Salsman's technical expertise will be helpful in explaining > the reporter's claim that, "It got so hot it could burn a blister on the > skin the size of a silver dollar." > > > Sincerely, > Don Kosloff > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal > and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this > message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for > delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you > have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, > distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you > have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, > and delete the original message. > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From bobcherry at cox.net Tue Jun 28 19:08:48 2005 From: bobcherry at cox.net (bobcherry@cox.net) Date: Tue Jun 28 19:09:02 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! Message-ID: <20050628170850.TRZQ11036.lakermmtao01.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> ``Nuclear fusion poses the exact problems of nuclear fission in the production of radioactive waste, the risks of accidents and proliferation,'' said Frederic Miller, head of Greenpeace France's nuclear campaign, in an e-mailed statement. ``France seems hypnotized by this absurd project.'' -------------- I wrote a high school English paper on controlled nuclear fusion back in 1963, at a time when fusion power plants were about "ten years away." At one time, I intended to get my PhD in plasma physics, but the local draft board altered my plans and diverted my course. In my opinion, controlled nuclear fusion to produce electricity is the primary long-term solution to humanity's energy needs. Once it is online, it can eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels (hydrogen produced from water using hydrolysis would replace gasoline and natural gas) and nuclear fission for almost all needs. It is well known that the radioactive wastes are relatively short-lived and highly manageable, despite whatever Greenpeace might say to further its agenda. The reaction is so difficult to maintain that it can't run away; if something goes wrong, the reaction stops (some plasma physicists compare controlled nuclear fusion to squeezing Jello). And I would like an explanation of how controlled fusion leads to nuclear proliferation. The physics was done in the 30s. The engineering remains a formidable task of scaling and control. We need to get to it. Bob C From jimm at WPI.EDU Tue Jun 28 19:52:16 2005 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Tue Jun 28 19:52:44 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners Message-ID: I agree, to a point. Most HPs do exactly that. Many don't. But the failure is in the standard-setting that generates the massive funding for protecting against extreme limits, e.g., EPA set YM limits at 4 mrem/year in water, and 4 mrem/year from radium in water, now costing municipal water systems $100s millions. Other than a few personal opinions bandied about, where were the HPs? The anti-nuke DOE Secretary (Richardson) used an anti-nuke (Michaels) to work outside DOE to collect discredited papers in a report and claimed DOE/AEC workers are 'cold war victims' (with doses below established limits). We could get no HPs to speak out. Many HPs are out fear-mongering the public about "site cleanups" at doses that are much less than 1% of the variation in background radiation. The core problem is the lack of integrity in responding to the specifically dishonest assessments produced by the closed NCRP/ICRP et al. 'advising' (and controlling rad protection appointments in) national and int'l govt agencies. There is no HP constraint on dose limits getting ever more extreme (generating jobs). The only limit is to avoid the premise that radiation should be prohibited.Will HPs accept the conclusion that 1-2% of cancers in nuclear workers are caused by radiation? While knowing that nuclear wokers have lower cancer rates than non-nuclear workers? Regards, Jim Muckerheide ________________________________ From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl on behalf of bobcherry@cox.net Sent: Tue 6/28/2005 12:49 PM To: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners You know that if health physicists were a disreputable group (and I maintain that we aren't), then we would concede all of the activists' alarms and hysteria about severe radiation hazards at levels of ionizing and nonionizing radiation exposure less than 10 or so times above, at, or below environmental levels. Then we could increase our salaries, membership in our profession, span of control, prestige, number of academic and leadership appointments, number and value of research grants, etc., accordingly. Yet we don't concede the activists' "points," because we prefer to tell the truth. So we remain as we are: responsible scientists, with our self-respect and scientific reputations intact, who provide our best advice to our employers and to the public. Bob > > From: dckosloff@firstenergycorp.com > Date: 2005/06/28 Tue AM 11:44:20 EDT > To: James Salsman > CC: radsafe@radlab.nl, radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners > > James Salsman wrote: > > >On the contrary, the Taiwan apartment-dwellers were not inhaling > >toxicants. > > Of course they were inhaling toxicants, just as all people do. We just > don't know which toxicants they were inhaling and how much they were > inhaling. > > Also, according to the DU "poisoning" theories, the Bethlehem workers > should have expressed the Gulf War Syndrome symptoms long before the Gulf > War Syndrome symptoms were identified. By the time the Gulf War came > around, the symptoms expressed by the Gulf War veterns should have been > quickly noted to be the "Bethlehem Millworker Syndrome" symptoms. You may > recall that the current DU activist assertion is that the non-cancer > symptoms from uranium dust exposure would be evident long before any cancer > symptoms would be observed. The non-cancer symptoms should also be > expressed at a much higher rate than the cancer symptoms, if the cancer > symptoms were ever expressed at all. > > In addition, the reporter's comment that "Many of those workers got sick" > could be made regarding any group of workers or non-workers anywhere. > > Perhaps, Mr. Salsman's technical expertise will be helpful in explaining > the reporter's claim that, "It got so hot it could burn a blister on the > skin the size of a silver dollar." > > > Sincerely, > Don Kosloff > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal > and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this > message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for > delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you > have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, > distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you > have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, > and delete the original message. > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From farbersa at optonline.net Tue Jun 28 20:08:16 2005 From: farbersa at optonline.net (farbersa@optonline.net) Date: Tue Jun 28 20:08:52 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! Message-ID: <734e675e4c.75e4c734e6@optonline.net> Hi Bob & all: I have to respectfully disagree with the comments by both Greenpeace and Bob about the radioactive waste issues related to fusion electric generation. While there are many short lived radioactive waste products from fusion, there is also a great deal of very, very long-lived neutron activation products generated in any conceivable set of materials forming the confinement system. So Greenpeace's assertion that: ``Nuclear fusion poses the exact problems of nuclear fission in the production of radioactive waste..." is not accurate or meaningful. The radwaste problems are different in fusion vs. fission but both involve substantial radwaste material handling and disposal issues, with fusion having more of a challenge related to long-lived activation products from what I have read. For both fusion and fission electric plants, the radwaste issues are not a real obstacle to electric generation. However, the issue would have to be managed and dealt with responsibly. Stewart Farber ========================= ----- Original Message ----- From: bobcherry@cox.net Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 1:08 pm Subject: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! > ``Nuclear fusion poses the exact problems of nuclear fission in > the production of radioactive waste, the risks of accidents and > proliferation,'' said Frederic Miller, head of Greenpeace France's > nuclear campaign, in an e-mailed statement. ``France seems > hypnotized by this absurd project.'' > -------------- > > I wrote a high school English paper on controlled nuclear fusion > back in 1963, at a time when fusion power plants were about "ten > years away." At one time, I intended to get my PhD in plasma > physics, but the local draft board altered my plans and diverted > my course. > > In my opinion, controlled nuclear fusion to produce electricity is > the primary long-term solution to humanity's energy needs. Once it > is online, it can eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels > (hydrogen produced from water using hydrolysis would replace > gasoline and natural gas) and nuclear fission for almost all > needs. > > It is well known that the radioactive wastes are relatively short- > lived and highly manageable, despite whatever Greenpeace might say > to further its agenda. The reaction is so difficult to maintain > that it can't run away; if something goes wrong, the reaction > stops (some plasma physicists compare controlled nuclear fusion to > squeezing Jello). And I would like an explanation of how > controlled fusion leads to nuclear proliferation. > > The physics was done in the 30s. The engineering remains a > formidable task of scaling and control. We need to get to it. > > Bob C > From bobcherry at cox.net Tue Jun 28 22:32:54 2005 From: bobcherry at cox.net (bobcherry@cox.net) Date: Tue Jun 28 22:33:07 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] ITER Radioactive Waste Message-ID: <20050628203253.EZSQ7787.lakermmtao10.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> See: http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/Toronto/fusion/radioactive_waste_from_iter_backgrounder.pdf A quote from the above PDF file: "After 100 years, the radiotoxicity of all of ITER is comparable to that found in the ash of a coal plant." The document is, of course, from a proponent of ITER, but it jibes with my earlier suggestion that ITER will not produce nearly as much long-lived radioactive waste as a fission power plant. You can Google for other sources for verification. ITER will produce tritium and neutron activation products. The amount and long-lived activity of the latter will be minimized by a judicious selection of construction materials. Bob C From james at bovik.org Tue Jun 28 22:33:20 2005 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Tue Jun 28 22:33:50 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42C1B410.4090105@bovik.org> Don Kosloff wrote: >... according to the DU "poisoning" theories, the Bethlehem workers > should have expressed the Gulf War Syndrome symptoms long before the Gulf > War Syndrome symptoms were identified.... Indeed. From below: "It was only after those soldiers came back from the first Gulf War with health problems caused by irradiated bombs that [Gene O'Brien] made the connection," he said. "Exactly the same thing happened to me. I was hit with uranium dust." http://buffalonews.com/editorial/20041216/1025306.asp Former Marine suffered from secret uranium work at Bethlehem, fought battle By JOHN F. BONFATTI Buffalo News 12/16/2004 Like so many others of his generation, Gene O'Brien went off to fight the last great war and returned to a job at the bustling Bethlehem Steel plant. As a Marine, O'Brien faced his share of danger. But nothing, he believes, compared to the danger he unknowingly encountered at the sprawling steel plant on the Lake Erie shore. The invisible threat was radiation from uranium that steelworkers were rolling into rods during secret government experiments in the early 1950s. O'Brien wasn't alone. Thousands of men worked in the mills, exposed to the danger. Of those workers, 2,985 claims for compensation had been filed on behalf of former employees at 13 area plants under the 2000 Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation program, as of early November. What makes O'Brien different is that he got money from the government for his sufferings. Not many others - just a few hundred - have seen any cash. "I came out of the Marine Corps and World War II and never knew I went into World War III," O'Brien said. "I didn't get the protective equipment in World War III that I had in World War II." O'Brien, 78, believes radiation at the plant damaged the front temporal lobe in his brain and led to the removal of his bladder and prostate. The U.S. government apparently also believes radiation led to his health problems. In November, it issued him a check for $150,000. "It took him three years to get this," said O'Brien's wife of 54 years, Jane, glancing at the piles of paperwork that clutter the kitchen table in their Elma home. "Three years of stuff all over the table." The federal law was designed to compensate workers who were unknowingly exposed to radiation when they worked on secret atomic weapons programs and later contracted certain cancers linked to that exposure. Successful claimants - like O'Brien - get $150,000 and money toward medical bills. But nearly half of the claims involving area plants have been denied. O'Brien's is one of just 357 claims that have been paid so far. And he's one of the few successful claimants willing to talk about his experiences with the compensation program. "It's good news," O'Brien said of his award, "but I'd rather have my health. And I feel sorry for the guys who are left. I don't think they're going to get anywhere." That's because he feels those still pursuing claims are being victimized by the government bureaucracy administering the program. Three agencies Three federal agencies - the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Energy - are involved in the program, which started with a promise by the government that it would lean toward approving claims. "That has not been the case," said Edwin Walker, leader of a group of former Bethlehem Steel workers who are critical of the program's administration. "They fight. They argue. They just don't respond." In the case of Bethlehem Steel claimants, Walker, O'Brien and others blame a computer model designed to determine the likelihood that a claimant's cancer was caused by radiation exposure. Earlier this week, a government audit pointed to significant flaws in the model, prompting local congressional leaders to call for it to be revised. But a government official whose agency, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, is responsible for developing the model has defended it and the program's administration. "I think there are some very positive things to say about Bethlehem Steel and the claims in New York," said Larry Elliott, director of NIOSH's Office of Compensation Analysis and Support. "New York is much farther ahead than the other states." The Bethlehem Steel model, Elliott said, is "a scientifically sound . . . document. It includes very favorable claimant assumptions." The model was needed because there is scant hard evidence detailing how much radiation workers were exposed to in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when the government conducted experiments at Bethlehem. The experiments involved rolling uranium for a federal reactor in Ohio. O'Brien was an electrician at Bethlehem Steel. He didn't work much at the bar mill where the rollings took place, but, as a grievance chairman for the steelworkers union, he said he frequently visited the area to talk with workers about seniority issues they were having. It was around this time, O'Brien said, that he inexplicably started having blackouts. Some occurred while he was driving his car, leading to at least three accidents. "It was only after those soldiers came back from the first Gulf War with health problems caused by irradiated bombs that I made the connection," he said. "Exactly the same thing happened to me. I was hit with uranium dust." First cancer in 1977 Ultimately, the blackouts led to his leaving Bethlehem Steel on disability in 1975. The cancers followed. In 1977, doctors diagnosed cancer in his bladder. That disappeared following chemotherapy, but in 1982, doctors found cancer in his prostate and, as a precaution, decided to remove both. In 1999, he was diagnosed with rectal cancer. With two major surgeries, O'Brien thought the chances of a successful claim were good. He was stunned when his claim was initially rejected. "When I first got rejected, I was hot," he said. "If I didn't get it, who the hell is going to get it?" That's a question Walker said he has heard over and over. "When we have our meetings, and there's usually 200 people or so, you hear them all (complain), not just one or two or ten. It's all the way down the line, the frustration," he said. Walker is a one-time Bethlehem bricklayer who subsequently got bladder cancer. His claim has been rejected, and his appeal of that rejection has been denied. O'Brien said the rejection of his claim prompted him to refile, this time adding what he thought were relatively minor skin cancers he'd had in the past. As it turned out, "with the skin cancer alone, I would have had enough" to receive the compensation. "I almost kicked the bucket with all this other stuff," Walker said of the bladder, prostrate and rectal cancers. Yet it was the inclusion of the skin cancers that resulted in his award. "I don't get it," said O'Brien, echoing a sentiment shared by many frustrated claimants. From frantaj at aecl.ca Tue Jun 28 22:39:29 2005 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Tue Jun 28 22:39:41 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Nuclear workers: low radiation dose linked to small increased r isk of cancer " Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A42D@sps13.aecl.ca> How accurate is this media story about the published study ? >From what I've seen of individual country studies (which contributed to this global compilation, I believe), the cancer rates of nuclear workers is lower than that of the public in general -- although age adjustment & other factors need to be factored in..... Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nuclear workers: low radiation dose linked to small increased risk of cancer Agence France Presse English Tue 28 Jun 2005 PARIS, June 29 (AFP) - Workers in the nuclear industry who are exposed to low doses of radiation face an increased probability of developing cancer, but the risk is small and in line with safety guidelines, a study published on Wednesday says. The research, published online by the British Medical Journal (BMJ), is the biggest of its kind, involving more than 400,000 nuclear workers in 15 countries, whose exposure to ionising radiation and health were monitored for 13 years on average. Present international safety recommendations are that workers in the nuclear industry be limited to occupational doses of 100 millisieverts (mSv) accumulated over five years, which should not exceed 50 mSv in any one year. Doses for the general public should be limited to one mSv per year, according to these recommendations. But these benchmarks are based on the outcome of survivors of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- and some experts say it is unsafe to extrapolate such data for radiation workers and the general public. The new study estimates that a dose of 100 mSv leads to a nearly 10-percent increase in the risk of mortality from all cancers excluding leukaemia. The dose would lead to a 19-percent increase in death from leukaemia, except for a form of this cancer called chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. But very few workers received 100mSv or more and some of the premature deaths could be attributable to smoking, the study says. "On the basis of these estimates, one to two percent of deaths from cancer among workers in this cohort may be attributable to radiation," it says. The risk is "higher than but statistically compatible with" the recommendations set down by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), it declares. Less than five percent of workers in the study received doses of more than 100 mSv over the course of their entire career, and most of these higher doses occurred in the early years of the nuclear industry when protection standards were less stringent than today, the study says. The average overall dose per worker in the study was 19.4 mSv; 90 percent had doses of less than 50 mSv. Ninety percent of the workers were men. They were employed for at least one year in nuclear power or nuclear research, waste management, production of fuel, isotopes or weapons. ================ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From frantaj at aecl.ca Tue Jun 28 22:48:27 2005 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Tue Jun 28 22:48:41 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] ITER Radioactive Waste Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A42E@sps13.aecl.ca> -----Original Message----- From: bobcherry@cox.net [mailto:bobcherry@cox.net] ITER will produce tritium and neutron activation products. The amount and long-lived activity of the latter will be minimized by a judicious selection of construction materials. _______________________________________________ As I understand it, ITER will NOT produce tritium -- it will consume tritium provided by other sources, such as fission plants (Canada was going to offer its stock of T from de-tritiation of heavy water moderator, but I don't know if that deal is still "on"). Also, I believe that many anti-ITER environistas pick on the tritium issue, since quite large inventories of the radioactive gas will be stored on-site. PS. congratulations to Japan, for not hosting ITER. Jaro CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From jjcohen at prodigy.net Tue Jun 28 22:50:31 2005 From: jjcohen at prodigy.net (jjcohen@prodigy.net) Date: Tue Jun 28 22:49:56 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched uranium missing References: Message-ID: <000c01c57c23$07c6dd20$2a35e345@domainnotset.invalid> I believe there is a quote from G.B. Shaw that states," A newspaper is an institution that is incapable of distinguishing between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilization." ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stabin, Michael" To: "Flood, John" ; "John Jacobus" ; ; "George Stanford" Cc: "radsafe" Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 5:13 AM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched uranium missing > Bob writ: > > "we have more reporters than we have news" > > I would just qualify that to say that "we have more reporters than we > have news that people wish to hear about". > > Also the thrust of Stew's comments. We have 24 hour coverage of OJ > Simpson, Scott Peterson and Michael Jackson while tribal wars change > borders and governments on many continents, wholesale slaughters of > ethnic groups continue until they reach some numerical value that > warrants our attention, disease and famine affect the poor but not the > rich in many places, and so on. There is plenty of news out there, but > people simply don't have the stomach for the unpleasant news nor the > intellectual stamina to listen long enough to understand the > complexities that cause the changes in the world that we live in. "A > speck of plutonium can cause cancer" and "everyone who worked at this > plant deserves a sack of money because they worked around a radiation > source" - this is easier to deal with, and far more fun. Reporters, on > the whole, can probably understand and report on the real world more > effectively than they do, but, like cocaine dealers, they are bound by > the need to make profits and must feed the preferred habits of their > users. If they don't, their competitors will. > > Mike > > Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP > Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences > Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences > Vanderbilt University > 1161 21st Avenue South > Nashville, TN 37232-2675 > Phone (615) 343-0068 > Fax (615) 322-3764 > Pager (615) 835-5153 > e-mail michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu > internet www.doseinfo-radar.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Flood, John > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:33 AM > To: 'John Jacobus'; farbersa@optonline.net; George Stanford > Cc: radsafe > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched uranium missing > > The fundamental problems are two-fold: 1) in a free enterprise economy > with a free press, bad news is big business, and 2) supply and demand - > we have more reporters than we have news, hence we have a news industry > that cannot survive financially on the naturally-occurring supply of > news. > > Bob Flood > Nevada Test Site > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From jjcohen at prodigy.net Tue Jun 28 23:04:06 2005 From: jjcohen at prodigy.net (jjcohen@prodigy.net) Date: Tue Jun 28 23:03:27 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ]Disreputable HP's? References: <20050628164950.IETQ10612.lakermmtao12.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> Message-ID: <001e01c57c24$ec339ec0$2a35e345@domainnotset.invalid> Bob, Perhaps all radiation safety professionals may not be quite as reputable as you suggest. Why else would they still cling to the LNT , ALARA, and similar disreputable policies? Jerry ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 9:49 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners > You know that if health physicists were a disreputable group (and I maintain that we aren't), then we would concede all of the activists' alarms and hysteria about severe radiation hazards at levels of ionizing and nonionizing radiation exposure less than 10 or so times above, at, or below environmental levels. Then we could increase our salaries, membership in our profession, span of control, prestige, number of academic and leadership appointments, number and value of research grants, etc., accordingly. > > Yet we don't concede the activists' "points," because we prefer to tell the truth. So we remain as we are: responsible scientists, with our self-respect and scientific reputations intact, who provide our best advice to our employers and to the public. > > Bob > > > > > From: dckosloff@firstenergycorp.com > > Date: 2005/06/28 Tue AM 11:44:20 EDT > > To: James Salsman > > CC: radsafe@radlab.nl, radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl > > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners > > > > James Salsman wrote: > > > > >On the contrary, the Taiwan apartment-dwellers were not inhaling > > >toxicants. > > > > Of course they were inhaling toxicants, just as all people do. We just > > don't know which toxicants they were inhaling and how much they were > > inhaling. > > > > Also, according to the DU "poisoning" theories, the Bethlehem workers > > should have expressed the Gulf War Syndrome symptoms long before the Gulf > > War Syndrome symptoms were identified. By the time the Gulf War came > > around, the symptoms expressed by the Gulf War veterns should have been > > quickly noted to be the "Bethlehem Millworker Syndrome" symptoms. You may > > recall that the current DU activist assertion is that the non-cancer > > symptoms from uranium dust exposure would be evident long before any cancer > > symptoms would be observed. The non-cancer symptoms should also be > > expressed at a much higher rate than the cancer symptoms, if the cancer > > symptoms were ever expressed at all. > > > > In addition, the reporter's comment that "Many of those workers got sick" > > could be made regarding any group of workers or non-workers anywhere. > > > > Perhaps, Mr. Salsman's technical expertise will be helpful in explaining > > the reporter's claim that, "It got so hot it could burn a blister on the > > skin the size of a silver dollar." > > > > > > Sincerely, > > Don Kosloff > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal > > and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this > > message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for > > delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you > > have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, > > distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you > > have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, > > and delete the original message. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Tue Jun 28 23:13:35 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue Jun 28 23:13:45 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050628211335.95243.qmail@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> My, how cynical. Have you read the HPS Position Paper, "Radiation Risk in Perspective," August 2004 http://hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf I believe that it is similar to the one published by the American Nuclear Society. --- "Muckerheide, James" wrote: > I agree, to a point. Most HPs do exactly that. > Many don't. But the failure > is in the standard-setting that generates the > massive funding for protecting > against extreme limits, e.g., EPA set YM limits at 4 > mrem/year in water, and > 4 mrem/year from radium in water, now costing > municipal water systems $100s > millions. Other than a few personal opinions bandied > about, where were the > HPs? The anti-nuke DOE Secretary (Richardson) used > an anti-nuke (Michaels) > to work outside DOE to collect discredited papers in > a report and claimed > DOE/AEC workers are 'cold war victims' (with doses > below established limits). > We could get no HPs to speak out. Many HPs are out > fear-mongering the public > about "site cleanups" at doses that are much less > than 1% of the variation in > background radiation. The core problem is the lack > of integrity in > responding to the specifically dishonest assessments > produced by the closed > NCRP/ICRP et al. 'advising' (and controlling rad > protection appointments in) > national and int'l govt agencies. There is no HP > constraint on dose limits > getting ever more extreme (generating jobs). The > only limit is to avoid the > premise that radiation should be prohibited.Will HPs > accept the conclusion > that 1-2% of cancers in nuclear workers are caused > by radiation? While > knowing that nuclear wokers have lower cancer rates > than non-nuclear workers? > > Regards, Jim Muckerheide > ________________________________ > > From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl on behalf of > bobcherry@cox.net > Sent: Tue 6/28/2005 12:49 PM > To: radsafe@radlab.nl > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium > Inhalation Poisoners > > > You know that if health physicists were a > disreputable group (and I maintain > that we aren't), then we would concede all of the > activists' alarms and > hysteria about severe radiation hazards at levels of > ionizing and nonionizing > radiation exposure less than 10 or so times above, > at, or below environmental > levels. Then we could increase our salaries, > membership in our profession, > span of control, prestige, number of academic and > leadership appointments, > number and value of research grants, etc., > accordingly. > > . . . +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com From jimm at WPI.EDU Tue Jun 28 23:13:30 2005 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Tue Jun 28 23:14:58 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched uranium missing Message-ID: Thought it was "a civilization"?? :-) Regards, Jim ________________________________ From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl on behalf of jjcohen@prodigy.net Sent: Tue 6/28/2005 4:50 PM To: Stabin, Michael; Flood, John; John Jacobus; Stewart Farber; George Stanford Cc: radsafe Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched uranium missing I believe there is a quote from G.B. Shaw that states," A newspaper is an institution that is incapable of distinguishing between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilization." ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stabin, Michael" To: "Flood, John" ; "John Jacobus" ; ; "George Stanford" Cc: "radsafe" Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 5:13 AM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched uranium missing > Bob writ: > > "we have more reporters than we have news" > > I would just qualify that to say that "we have more reporters than we > have news that people wish to hear about". > > Also the thrust of Stew's comments. We have 24 hour coverage of OJ > Simpson, Scott Peterson and Michael Jackson while tribal wars change > borders and governments on many continents, wholesale slaughters of > ethnic groups continue until they reach some numerical value that > warrants our attention, disease and famine affect the poor but not the > rich in many places, and so on. There is plenty of news out there, but > people simply don't have the stomach for the unpleasant news nor the > intellectual stamina to listen long enough to understand the > complexities that cause the changes in the world that we live in. "A > speck of plutonium can cause cancer" and "everyone who worked at this > plant deserves a sack of money because they worked around a radiation > source" - this is easier to deal with, and far more fun. Reporters, on > the whole, can probably understand and report on the real world more > effectively than they do, but, like cocaine dealers, they are bound by > the need to make profits and must feed the preferred habits of their > users. If they don't, their competitors will. > > Mike > > Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP > Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences > Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences > Vanderbilt University > 1161 21st Avenue South > Nashville, TN 37232-2675 > Phone (615) 343-0068 > Fax (615) 322-3764 > Pager (615) 835-5153 > e-mail michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu > internet www.doseinfo-radar.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Flood, John > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:33 AM > To: 'John Jacobus'; farbersa@optonline.net; George Stanford > Cc: radsafe > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Minute amount of enriched uranium missing > > The fundamental problems are two-fold: 1) in a free enterprise economy > with a free press, bad news is big business, and 2) supply and demand - > we have more reporters than we have news, hence we have a news industry > that cannot survive financially on the naturally-occurring supply of > news. > > Bob Flood > Nevada Test Site > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From jimm at WPI.EDU Tue Jun 28 23:15:45 2005 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Tue Jun 28 23:20:50 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners Message-ID: Sure. I was involved at the time. And adopting that in the 2001 revision to my ANS statement. But in 2000-2001 the HPS guys talking to Congress, including one of the authors, and in other vebues, denied it meant what it says when it came to arguing against extreme rad protection standards. ________________________________ From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@yahoo.com] Sent: Tue 6/28/2005 5:13 PM To: Muckerheide, James; bobcherry@cox.net; radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners My, how cynical. Have you read the HPS Position Paper, "Radiation Risk in Perspective," August 2004 http://hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf I believe that it is similar to the one published by the American Nuclear Society. --- "Muckerheide, James" wrote: > I agree, to a point. Most HPs do exactly that. > Many don't. But the failure > is in the standard-setting that generates the > massive funding for protecting > against extreme limits, e.g., EPA set YM limits at 4 > mrem/year in water, and > 4 mrem/year from radium in water, now costing > municipal water systems $100s > millions. Other than a few personal opinions bandied > about, where were the > HPs? The anti-nuke DOE Secretary (Richardson) used > an anti-nuke (Michaels) > to work outside DOE to collect discredited papers in > a report and claimed > DOE/AEC workers are 'cold war victims' (with doses > below established limits). > We could get no HPs to speak out. Many HPs are out > fear-mongering the public > about "site cleanups" at doses that are much less > than 1% of the variation in > background radiation. The core problem is the lack > of integrity in > responding to the specifically dishonest assessments > produced by the closed > NCRP/ICRP et al. 'advising' (and controlling rad > protection appointments in) > national and int'l govt agencies. There is no HP > constraint on dose limits > getting ever more extreme (generating jobs). The > only limit is to avoid the > premise that radiation should be prohibited.Will HPs > accept the conclusion > that 1-2% of cancers in nuclear workers are caused > by radiation? While > knowing that nuclear wokers have lower cancer rates > than non-nuclear workers? > > Regards, Jim Muckerheide > ________________________________ > > From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl on behalf of > bobcherry@cox.net > Sent: Tue 6/28/2005 12:49 PM > To: radsafe@radlab.nl > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium > Inhalation Poisoners > > > You know that if health physicists were a > disreputable group (and I maintain > that we aren't), then we would concede all of the > activists' alarms and > hysteria about severe radiation hazards at levels of > ionizing and nonionizing > radiation exposure less than 10 or so times above, > at, or below environmental > levels. Then we could increase our salaries, > membership in our profession, > span of control, prestige, number of academic and > leadership appointments, > number and value of research grants, etc., > accordingly. > > . . . +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com From sandyfl at earthlink.net Tue Jun 28 23:46:46 2005 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue Jun 28 23:47:59 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Nuclear workers: low radiation dose linked to small increased r isk of cancer " In-Reply-To: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A42D@sps13.aecl.ca> Message-ID: <42C162D6.24194.696DF6D@localhost> On 28 Jun 2005 at 16:39, Franta, Jaroslav wrote: > How accurate is this media story about the published study ? > >From what I've seen of individual country studies (which contributed > >to this > global compilation, I believe), the cancer rates of nuclear workers is > lower than that of the public in general -- although age adjustment & > other factors need to be factored in..... Other studies in the US power reactor population show the opposite. When the probablilty is shown to be lower than for the general public, the term "healthy worker effect" is thrown out. You can't win! ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From hflong at pacbell.net Wed Jun 29 00:19:19 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Wed Jun 29 00:19:31 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Nuclear workers: low radiation dose linked to small increased r isk of cancer " In-Reply-To: <42C162D6.24194.696DF6D@localhost> Message-ID: <20050628221919.79294.qmail@web81803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> We are winning! Listen to the President tonight, boosting nuclear electrical production even in a talk largely about Iraq. Serendipity. The global warming, world government boosters (BORG) have, unintentionally, made the public aware of the economic need for nuclear power! Howard Long Sandy Perle wrote: On 28 Jun 2005 at 16:39, Franta, Jaroslav wrote: > How accurate is this media story about the published study ? > >From what I've seen of individual country studies (which contributed > >to this > global compilation, I believe), the cancer rates of nuclear workers is > lower than that of the public in general -- although age adjustment & > other factors need to be factored in..... Other studies in the US power reactor population show the opposite. When the probablilty is shown to be lower than for the general public, the term "healthy worker effect" is thrown out. You can't win! ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From sandyfl at earthlink.net Wed Jun 29 01:11:28 2005 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Wed Jun 29 01:11:45 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: " Nuclear workers: low radiation dose linked to small increased r isk of cancer " In-Reply-To: <20050628221919.79294.qmail@web81803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <42C162D6.24194.696DF6D@localhost> Message-ID: <42C176B0.24756.22B11A8@localhost> On 28 Jun 2005 at 15:19, howard long wrote: > made the public aware of the economic need for nuclear power! Howard, >From the public perception, currently, yes, we are winning. However, whenever there is data that demonstrates that esposure to radiation isn't the "doomsday scenario", there is always hype put on the data to downplay the significance of the data's conclusion. In that sense, we can't win. But yes, the public seems to be coming around. When those utilities move forward with more formal licensing actions, then we'll see what the public really thinks. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From jimm at WPI.EDU Wed Jun 29 02:23:41 2005 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Wed Jun 29 02:24:39 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Nuclear workers: low radiation dose linked tosmall increased r isk of cancer " Message-ID: Well you can't win if you let them have the last (only) word. Why didn't/don't the nuclear industries (i.e., your companies) clarify that, e.g., - the US nuclear workers should be compared to comparable non-nuclear workers, - the "HWE" can't result in 0.6 SMR vs. the general population, - workers in "hazardous industries" with carcinogens have cancers at greater than general public SMRs, - science reviews, including a formal review of the science in Canada for worker compensation, that included some of the same "world-renown" epi people that now misrepresent the data, showed that cancer can have little HWE because latency and screening for employment work against having bias in hiring and continuing employment. Regards, Jim Muckerheide -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl on behalf of Sandy Perle Sent: Tue 6/28/2005 5:46 PM To: Radsafe (E-mail); Franta, Jaroslav Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] " Nuclear workers: low radiation dose linked tosmall increased r isk of cancer " On 28 Jun 2005 at 16:39, Franta, Jaroslav wrote: > How accurate is this media story about the published study ? > >From what I've seen of individual country studies (which contributed > >to this > global compilation, I believe), the cancer rates of nuclear workers is > lower than that of the public in general -- although age adjustment & > other factors need to be factored in..... Other studies in the US power reactor population show the opposite. When the probablilty is shown to be lower than for the general public, the term "healthy worker effect" is thrown out. You can't win! ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca Wed Jun 29 04:39:32 2005 From: jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca (Jaro) Date: Wed Jun 29 04:39:41 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Nuclear workers: low radiation dose linked tosmall increased r isk of cancer " In-Reply-To: <42C162D6.24194.696DF6D@localhost> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Sandy Perle Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 5:47 PM Other studies in the US power reactor population show the opposite. When the probablilty is shown to be lower than for the general public, the term "healthy worker effect" is thrown out. You can't win! ------------------------------------- I don't know if I would call it a "healthy worker effect" -- its pretty obvious that cancer is an old-age disease, and that by definition retired folks aren't "workers" - nuclear or otherwise. The national study I was refering to was this one : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Ab stract&list_uids=15161357&query_hl=1 Radiat Res. 2004 Jun;161(6):633-41. Analysis of mortality among Canadian nuclear power industry workers after chronic low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation. Zablotska LB, Ashmore JP, Howe GR. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York 10032, USA. lbz7@columbia.edu Studies of radiation-associated risks among workers chronically exposed to low doses of radiation are important, both to estimate risks directly and to assess the adequacy of extrapolations of risk estimates from high-dose studies. This paper presents results based on a cohort of 45,468 nuclear power industry workers from the Canadian National Dose Registry monitored for more than 1 year for chronic low-dose whole-body ionizing radiation exposures sometime between 1957 and 1994 (mean duration of monitoring = 7.4 years, mean cumulative equivalent dose = 13.5 mSv). The excess relative risks for leukemia [excluding chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)] and for all solid cancers were 52.5 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.205, 291] and 2.80 (95% CI: -0.038, 7.13) per sievert, respectively, both associations having P values close to 0.05. Relative risks by dose categories increased monotonically for leukemia excluding CLL but were less consistent for all solid cancers combined. Although the point estimates are higher than those found in other studies of whole-body irradiation, the difference could well be due to chance. Further follow-up of this cohort or the combination of results from multiple worker studies will produce more stable estimates and thus complement the risk estimates from higher-dose studies. ----------- .....whose findings have been summarised by others in the graph (image) I posted at http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/quebec/reactions/Zablotska_2004e_sml.gif .....obviously, the cancer risk for the ARWs is low -- but presumably it will catch up with the general population, as the group ages. Comments welcome ! Jaro Jaro Franta, P.Eng. Tel.: (514) 875-3444 Montr?al, Qu?bec frantaj@aecl.ca web master, CNS Qu?bec branch: http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/quebec/quebec.html <><><><><><><><><><><> -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.6/33 - Release Date: 6/28/2005 From andrewsjp at chartertn.net Wed Jun 29 05:06:36 2005 From: andrewsjp at chartertn.net (John Andrews) Date: Wed Jun 29 05:14:59 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! In-Reply-To: <20050628170850.TRZQ11036.lakermmtao01.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> References: <20050628170850.TRZQ11036.lakermmtao01.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> Message-ID: <42C2103C.6050804@chartertn.net> The problem as I see it with fusion is that all the execss energy is given to neutrons. In order to convert this essentially thermal energy of the neutrons into usable thermal energy we have to use uranium as a blanket to convert the energy into fission energy using the vastly greater energy of the fission products to convert to heat. Lots of it. With that process we are back to all the problems we have today of radioactive waste. The fusion process is pie in the sky until we talk about the real problem of converting the fusion energy into heat and then into electricity. John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennesse bobcherry@cox.net wrote: >``Nuclear fusion poses the exact problems of nuclear fission in the production of radioactive waste, the risks of accidents and proliferation,'' said Frederic Miller, head of Greenpeace France's nuclear campaign, in an e-mailed statement. ``France seems hypnotized by this absurd project.'' >-------------- > >I wrote a high school English paper on controlled nuclear fusion back in 1963, at a time when fusion power plants were about "ten years away." At one time, I intended to get my PhD in plasma physics, but the local draft board altered my plans and diverted my course. > >In my opinion, controlled nuclear fusion to produce electricity is the primary long-term solution to humanity's energy needs. Once it is online, it can eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels (hydrogen produced from water using hydrolysis would replace gasoline and natural gas) and nuclear fission for almost all needs. > >It is well known that the radioactive wastes are relatively short-lived and highly manageable, despite whatever Greenpeace might say to further its agenda. The reaction is so difficult to maintain that it can't run away; if something goes wrong, the reaction stops (some plasma physicists compare controlled nuclear fusion to squeezing Jello). And I would like an explanation of how controlled fusion leads to nuclear proliferation. > >The physics was done in the 30s. The engineering remains a formidable task of scaling and control. We need to get to it. > >Bob C > >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > > From jimm at WPI.EDU Wed Jun 29 06:37:57 2005 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Wed Jun 29 06:38:54 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! Message-ID: Lithium blanket? breeds tritium; working fluid carries away heat to generate electricity. Does inertial confinement work differently? Regards, Jim -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl on behalf of John Andrews Sent: Tue 6/28/2005 11:06 PM To: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! The problem as I see it with fusion is that all the execss energy is given to neutrons. In order to convert this essentially thermal energy of the neutrons into usable thermal energy we have to use uranium as a blanket to convert the energy into fission energy using the vastly greater energy of the fission products to convert to heat. Lots of it. With that process we are back to all the problems we have today of radioactive waste. The fusion process is pie in the sky until we talk about the real problem of converting the fusion energy into heat and then into electricity. John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennesse bobcherry@cox.net wrote: >``Nuclear fusion poses the exact problems of nuclear fission in the production of radioactive waste, the risks of accidents and proliferation,'' said Frederic Miller, head of Greenpeace France's nuclear campaign, in an e-mailed statement. ``France seems hypnotized by this absurd project.'' >-------------- > >I wrote a high school English paper on controlled nuclear fusion back in 1963, at a time when fusion power plants were about "ten years away." At one time, I intended to get my PhD in plasma physics, but the local draft board altered my plans and diverted my course. > >In my opinion, controlled nuclear fusion to produce electricity is the primary long-term solution to humanity's energy needs. Once it is online, it can eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels (hydrogen produced from water using hydrolysis would replace gasoline and natural gas) and nuclear fission for almost all needs. > >It is well known that the radioactive wastes are relatively short-lived and highly manageable, despite whatever Greenpeace might say to further its agenda. The reaction is so difficult to maintain that it can't run away; if something goes wrong, the reaction stops (some plasma physicists compare controlled nuclear fusion to squeezing Jello). And I would like an explanation of how controlled fusion leads to nuclear proliferation. > >The physics was done in the 30s. The engineering remains a formidable task of scaling and control. We need to get to it. > >Bob C > >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > > _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From JPreisig at aol.com Wed Jun 29 07:01:56 2005 From: JPreisig at aol.com (JPreisig@aol.com) Date: Wed Jun 29 07:02:27 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Absurd? Oh, the irony! Message-ID: <30.756fab04.2ff38544@aol.com> Hmmmmm, This is from: jpreisig@aol.com . Hey Radsafers, I am somewhat perplexed by John Andrews' comments on fusion and energy retrieval from fusion neutrons. I don't believe one has to use a uranium blanket for energy retrieval from the fusion neutrons. All one has to do is create a water layer (or blanket, if you will) around the fusion reactor. The 15 MeV neutrons will give up much of their energy in collisions with the water atoms. The water is thus heated and used to drive a turbine to produce electricity. That's all. The big technical problem in fusion is creating a hot enough plasma which can be contained in a stable manner (for a long enough time). The containing is done using magnetic fields. See Lawson's Criterion (and similar topics) in your fusion textbook. The people at PPPL (Princeton Plasma Physics Lab) and elsewhere are making progress in fusion work. The current fusion experiment at PPPL is the NSTX. ITER comes later on. I think ITER is headed for France because Japan is too seismically active. There may be other reasons. I guess the people at PPPL (and/or Princeton) have been working on this problem for over 50 years. The progress seems kind of slow to me, but then plasmas are at high temperatures and are not easy to contain. In other physics news, I think I read the other day that the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) scientists at Brookhaven Lab have been seeking to make something called a Quark-Gluon Plasma. Their recent work suggests that instead of a Quark-Gluon plasma, they have succeeded in producing some sort of plasma related "ideal liquid". I guess this is a real discovery which will help our understanding of all this. Perhaps to get a true Quark-Gluon plasma, they will have to ramp up their ion collision energies??? I think fusion propulsion would be preferable to fission propulsion for space travel. We're all waiting???? Enjoy the Summer!!!! Regards, Joseph R. (Joe) Preisig, Ph.D. From JGinniver at aol.com Wed Jun 29 08:05:09 2005 From: JGinniver at aol.com (JGinniver@aol.com) Date: Wed Jun 29 08:05:31 2005 Subject: Fwd: [ RadSafe ] Re: Absurd? Oh, the irony! Message-ID: <55.76225115.2ff39415@aol.com> Whoops, forgot to include the list in the original posting. From hflong at pacbell.net Tue Jun 28 19:17:07 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Wed Jun 29 10:52:32 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranium Inhalation like Radon Inhalation? In-Reply-To: <42C0EBF4.3010403@bovik.org> Message-ID: <20050628171707.39430.qmail@web81809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Would U inhalation (if any) be more similar to radon inhalation? See: Cohen, Bernard L Test of the Linear-No Threshold Theory of Radiation Carcinogenesis for Inhaled Radon Decay Products Health Physics Feb 1995 V 68 N 2 p157-? I have attached 2 pages in hopes the listmaster will save many the look -up. Howard Long James Salsman wrote: Howard F. Long, M.D. wrote: > The selected cancers in U processors ... is inconsistent with > the better documented data in "Is Chronic Radiation an Effective > Prophylaxis Against Cancer" Chen, Luan et al (Taiwan Apts).... On the contrary, the Taiwan apartment-dwellers were not inhaling toxicants. Sincerely, James Salsman From rontucknow at yahoo.com Tue Jun 28 19:17:16 2005 From: rontucknow at yahoo.com (Ron Tucknow) Date: Wed Jun 29 10:53:41 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] US reporting agencies Message-ID: <20050628171717.81485.qmail@web33809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have a question for you folks... To make the answer as easy as possible, I'll make the scenario somewhat far-fetched. A patient goes for a radiologic exam in a private radiology office in the United States. The patient was accidently overdosed with X-rays. After the procedure, the radiologic technician tells the patient that she was overdosed with X-rays, but that he does not want to report the incident for fear of reprimand. You can assume that the radiology office will side with their technician pertaining any disputes. To whom can the patient report the incident? Why would anyone believe her? Ron ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com From Roy.Herren at med.va.gov Tue Jun 28 19:03:55 2005 From: Roy.Herren at med.va.gov (Herren, Roy WS.) Date: Wed Jun 29 10:53:53 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical physics meeting features innovations coming to a hospital near you Message-ID: <6884EB498415D411A71A0000F803A468110255FF@VHASFCEXC1> [ Back to EurekAlert! ] Public release date: 28-Jun-2005 Contact: Ben Stein bstein@aip.org 301-209-3091 Phillip Schewe pschewe@aip.org 301-209-3092 American Institute of Physics 4D proton therapy, radiation-resistant tumors, interpreting medical images Medical physics meeting features innovations coming to a hospital near you College Park, MD, June 28, 2005 - How can the act of simply imaging a tumor reveal cancer regions that will be invulnerable to normal levels of radiation? What are the biggest errors in reading image scans and how can they be fixed? What recent advances are making subatomic protons increasingly desirable for treating lung tumors? What can local governments do to better prepare for radiological emergencies? These and other questions will be addressed at the 47th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), which will take place July 24-28, 2005 in Seattle, WA at the newly expanded Washington State Convention & Trade Center, located at Pike Street and 7th Avenue. The scientific program will begin on Sunday, July 24 at 8:00 AM and conclude on Thursday, July 28 at noon. Approximately 1152 papers will be presented on subjects at the intersection of physics and medicine. Many of these topics deal with the development of state-of-the-art imaging and therapeutic devices, and the new techniques that go along with them. CONTENTS This news release begins by containing information on how to cover the meeting, then describes the President's Symposium on the World Year of Physics as well as some public-policy sessions, and concludes by highlighting six scientific papers/sessions at the meeting. HOW TO COVER THE MEETING The AAPM meeting webpage ( http://www.aapm.org/meetings/05AM/) contains links to the full program. Starting in early July, a Virtual Pressroom will contain additional meeting tips, lay-language papers, and press releases. Reporters who would like to attend the meeting should fill out the press registration form ( http://www.aapm.org/meetings/05AM/documents/pressreg.PDF) by July 15. Even if you can't make it to Seattle, the Virtual Pressroom and this news release are designed to make it possible to cover meeting highlights from your desk. For assistance in contacting researchers and setting up interviews, please do not hesitate to contact the science writers listed at the top of the news release. PRESS LUNCHEON A press luncheon featuring some of the most newsworthy topics at the meeting will be held in room 401 between 12:00-1:30 PM on Tuesday, July 26. Topics will include 4D proton therapy, lighting up radiation-resistant cancer regions, first clinical trials of a mammography alternative, and image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT), in which onboard imaging equipment guides radiation more precisely than previously possible during a cancer therapy procedure. Further details will be given in an upcoming news release. RSVP Ben Stein at bstein@aip.org by July 15 if possible. PRESIDENT'S SYMPOSIUM FEATURES EINSTEIN AND THE WORLD YEAR OF PHYSICS The AAPM President's Symposium, moderated by AAPM President Howard Amols, which focuses on the World Year of Physics that has been declared for 2005 ( http://www.wyp2005.org/). John Rigden ( jrigden@aip.org), a physicist, historian, and popular science writer, will discuss how in a period of six months, one week, and two days, in 1905, Einstein wrote five papers that helped form the bedrock of modern physics. Medical physicist Peter Almond ( palmond@mdanderson.org) will talk about the concurrent early history of radiation physics, and how news of Wilhelm Roentgen's 1895 discovery spread like wildfire and led quickly to medical uses of x rays. TERRORISM RESPONSE, MEDICAL ERRORS, INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENT A weeklong series of professional symposia will cover various public policy issues that affect the general public. On Wednesday, July 27, at 10:00 AM, Janice Adair, the Assistant Secretary of Washington State's Division of Environmental Health, will describe emergency preparedness and terrorism response training for professionals at the statewide level. On Thursday, July 28, at 10:00 AM, Debra McBaugh, the chairperson of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, will discuss how medical physicists have unique skills that can assist states in terrorism response. McBaugh was part of the State of Washington's team that participated in a national exercise that included responding to a simulated dirty bomb attack. Other sessions throughout the week cover topics such as how Medicare and Medicaid reform are affecting insurance reimbursement of radiological procedures, medical errors, the impact of recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission training and experience regulations on the handlers of radioactive material in diagnosis and therapy, and reforms in the radiological health programs at the FDA. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM The following is a sampling of some of the many noteworthy talks that medical physicists will present at the meeting. I. PROMISING FIRST IMAGES FROM HUMAN CLINICAL TRIALS OF MAMMOGRAPHY ALTERNATIVE II. LIGHTING UP RADIATION-RESISTANT TUMOR REGIONS III. READING BETWEEN THE LINES OF MEDICAL-IMAGE INTERPRETATION IV. TREATING LUNG CANCER WITH 4D PROTONS V. HYBRID MACHINE PERFORMS MRI AND RADIATION THERAPY VI. ELECTRON TECHNIQUE IMAGES CRUCIAL OXYGEN LEVELS I. PROMISING FIRST IMAGES FROM HUMAN CLINICAL TRIALS OF MAMMOGRAPHY ALTERNATIVE Researchers will present some of the first images from human clinical trials of breast CT imaging, a potential improvement over traditional mammography that aims to catch breast cancer earlier while eliminating patient discomfort. Traditional mammograms involve squeezing the breast between two plates and firing an x-ray that images the breast all at once. In breast CT, the patient lies down on a table and places one breast at a time through a circular opening, while a CT scanner produces 300 images per breast, in a period of just 17 seconds, to build up 3D images. According to the inventors of the new approach, including John Boone of the University of California at Davis ( jmboone@ucdavis.edu), the technique has the potential to catch tumors that are the size of a pea, as opposed to the garbanzo-sized tumors that can be caught with standard mammography, while not requiring painful breast compression. In addition, the 3D images can catch buried tumors that are ordinarily obscured by 2D mammograms. At the AAPM meeting, Thomas Nelson of the University of California at San Diego ( tnelson@ucsd.edu) will present some of the first images from the clinical trials. Nelson and his colleagues report that the breast CT images show impressive detail of the unique tissue structure of the breast and high-contrast glandular detail. If the first clinical trial successfully demonstrates that breast CT can detect tumors as well as mammograms, a larger-scale clinical trial, which can occur in as early as 2 or 3 years, will test if the technique can detect tumors earlier than mammograms. Breast CT will expose the patient to about as much radiation as a standard mammography. (Paper SU-EE-A2-3, Sunday, 2:15 PM; for more information, see http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/newsroom/releases/archives/cancer/2005/breast_c t5-2005.html). Meanwhile, researchers at the University of Rochester, the University of Massachusetts, and Duke University are also independently pursuing breast CT machines as an alternative to standard mammography. II. LIGHTING UP RADIATION-RESISTANT TUMOR REGIONS Andrei Pugachev of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York ( pugachea@mskcc.org) will present progress towards reliably finding and imaging regions of a tumor that are not destroyed by ordinary levels of radiation. Like an overdeveloped mall built suddenly in a small town, aggressive tumors overwhelm their surroundings; they often grow faster than the blood vessels supplying oxygen to them. Such fast-growing tumors often contain "hypoxic regions," or areas of lower-than-normal levels of oxygen. As it turns out, these hypoxic tumor regions are resistant to radiation. That's because when radiation damages DNA in a tumor cell, oxygen is needed to carry out additional chemical reactions to make the damage permanent. Currently, there are radioactive tracers that, when injected into the blood supply, will tend to bind to hypoxic regions in tissue and light them up for doctors to see in a PET scan. Unfortunately, however, some tracers behave very differently in different tumors, and their accuracy in mapping hypoxic regions is not known. Pugachev and colleagues have devised a technique for verifying that PET tracers work as intended. They compare how a PET tracer distributes itself in a tumor to the distribution of a proven marker of hypoxia, such as the chemical pimonidazole. In animal studies of prostate tumors, they found that two specific PET tracers were reliable and one was not. By validating PET tracers in a two-step process (first, using animal tumor models and then patient tumor biopsies), researchers hope that they will soon be able to produce reliable, in-vivo images of hypoxic tumor regions (Paper MO-D-I-609-8, Monday, 1:30 PM). III. READING BETWEEN THE LINES OF MEDICAL-IMAGE INTERPRETATION Properly interpreting a medical image can involve a life-or-death decision about the course of a patient's treatment. In recent years, computers have helped image perception in two ways. First, algorithms can be used to process digital information to make images clearer, such as by enhancing contrast. Second, algorithms can aid in detecting and possibly classifying lesions. But there are still plenty of chances for errors in interpretation. Sometimes a radiologist will make a mistake; they might miss lesions (false negatives) or report something as positive when in fact there is nothing there (false positives). Elizabeth Krupinski ( krupinski@radiology.arizona.edu, http://www.radiology.arizona.edu/krupinski/index.html), who holds joint appointments in the radiology and psychology departments at the University of Arizona, is a leader in Medical Image Perception research, which seeks to discover the root causes of interpretation errors and find ways to avoid them. She is the first of several speakers on this topic at session WE-E-I-609 (Wednesday, 3:30-5:00 PM), which is designed to highlight the importance of medical image perception research to a community of researchers that may not be that familiar with the topic or know why it is important. As Krupinski points out, the radiologist is the final link in the imaging chain. He or she holds the final responsibility for interpreting the image data and making a diagnostic decision that will affect patient care. Hence there is a need for examining how the radiologist views images and what factors influence the interpretation process. IV. TREATING LUNG CANCER WITH 4D PROTONS Compared to the x rays traditionally used in radiation therapy, protons offer the ability to destroy lung tumors just as competently while inflicting less damage to surrounding healthy tissue. In a small experimental patient study, researchers have increased the effectiveness of using protons to treat lung tumors. In traditional radiation therapy, one must use multiple beams of x-rays to deliver a uniform dose to a lung tumor; often at least one of the x-ray beams will exit from the healthy (non-tumor-containing) lung and potentially damage it. On the other hand, positively charged, subatomic protons only travel a limited distance through the body; they never make it to the other lung, and they also are more likely to spare nearby organs such as the esophagus and heart. In any radiation treatment of the lung, it is a challenge to keep the radiation on target while the tumor moves as a result of patient breathing. In the 4D approach, one takes into account how the patient's breathing moves the lung back and forth over time (the fourth dimension) so that the radiation hits the tumor precisely over all phases of a patient's breathing cycle. Now, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital have applied the 4D approach to proton therapy. In a study of four patients, they have found that planning and carrying out 4D proton therapy delivers excellent dose levels to lung tumors in all cases. The only thing preventing this technique from wider use is the need to develop an algorithm that cuts down the currently lengthy time it takes to calculate and plan the proton beam's direction and intensity for each breathing phase. The 4D approach is also applicable to radiation therapy using carbon ions, which is currently being used to help defeat lung cancer in a couple of centers in Japan. (Paper WE-E-J-6C-7, Wednesday, 3:30 PM; contact Martijn Engelsman, now at MAASTRO clinic, Netherlands, martijn.engelsman@maastro.nl) V. HYBRID MACHINE PERFORMS MRI AND RADIATION THERAPY Combining MRI imaging and cancer radiation therapy in a single procedure addresses the problem of maintaining accurate positioning while performing radiotherapy over a period of several days or more. A procedure developed by a collaboration of scientists at University Medical Center Utrecht (Netherlands), Philips Research Hamburg (Germany), and Elekta Oncology Systems (Great Britain) uses a slightly modified commercial MRI unit surrounded by a movable accelerator (producing 6-megavolt beams of electrons to generate x rays). The whole process of tumor imaging and dose delivery is under computer control. According to Jan Lagendijk ( J.J.W.Lagendijk@radth.med.uu.nl, www.radiotherapie.nl), he and his colleagues expect that this new design will become the next-generation radiotherapy treatment machine. The superior image quality of the MRI available on line during treatment should have a large impact on the design of individualized radiation-therapy treatment plans. (MO-E-J-6B-3, Monday, 4 PM; for another recent hybrid machine that combines MRI and x-ray methods, see a June 2005 Physics Today article at http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-6/p22.html). VI. ELECTRON TECHNIQUE IMAGES CRUCIAL OXYGEN LEVELS Taking advantage of the properties of electrons in certain biochemical compounds, Charles Pelizzari ( c-pelizzari@uchicago.edu) and his colleagues use a novel technique to form images of the oxygen distribution of small animals with millimeter spatial resolution. Developing these tools at the Center for In-Vivo EPR Imaging directed by Howard Halpern at the University of Chicago, the researchers create these important maps of oxygen levels by magnetically manipulating the unpaired electrons in certain oxygen-containing molecules such as free radicals. Most electrons in atoms and molecules form pairs that mutually cancel out their internal magnetic properties, but unpaired electrons can give the atom/molecule "paramagnetic" properties that cause them to be weakly attracted to an external magnetic field. Electron paramagnetic imaging (EPRI) obtains pictures of molecules with unpaired electrons in a similar way that MRI obtains images of atomic nuclei such as the hydrogen in water: an image is formed when paramagnetic molecules, lined up in a magnetic field, absorb and then re-emit electromagnetic waves in or near the microwave portion of the spectrum. Using a series of magnetic fields that vary in strength over a given region of space, these emissions can be reconstructed into a 3D image. Where EPRI is advantageous over MRI is in providing quantitative images of the distribution of oxygen in living tissues. Oxygen, or its absence, is central to many diseases; it is a factor in cancer aggressiveness and in the response to radiation and chemotherapy. Pelizzari expects that one day this EPR methodology will obtain submillimeter-resolution maps and also be scaled up to human dimensions. A potential long-term benefit of EPR imaging should be in providing quick feedback on the results of cancer therapy in days or even hours, without the use of radioactivity. In their talk at the meeting, Pelizzari's group will present EPR oxygen images superimposed on MRI anatomical images (WE-D-I-609-8) ### ABOUT MEDICAL PHYSICISTS If you have ever had a mammogram, an ultrasound, an x-ray or a PET scan, chances are reasonable that a medical physicist was working behind the scenes to make sure the imaging procedure was as effective as possible. Medical physicists help to develop new imaging techniques, improve existing ones, and assure the safety of radiation used in medical procedures. They contribute to the development of therapeutic techniques, such as the radiation treatment and prostate implants for cancer. They collaborate with radiation oncologists to design cancer treatment plans. They monitor equipment and procedures to insure that cancer patients receive the prescribed dose of radiation to the correct location. AAPM's annual meeting provides some of medical physicists' latest innovations, which may be coming to a hospital near you. ABOUT AAPM AAPM ( www.aapm.org) is a scientific, educational, and professional organization of more than 4,700 medical physicists. Headquarters are located at the American Center for Physics in College Park, MD. Publications include a scientific journal ("Medical Physics"), technical reports, and symposium From bcradsafers at hotmail.com Wed Jun 29 15:02:12 2005 From: bcradsafers at hotmail.com (Bjorn Cedervall) Date: Wed Jun 29 15:02:31 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! In-Reply-To: <42C2103C.6050804@chartertn.net> Message-ID: >``Nuclear fusion poses the exact problems of nuclear fission in the >production of radioactive waste, the risks of accidents and >proliferation,'' said Frederic Miller, head of Greenpeace France's nuclear >campaign, in an e-mailed statement. ``France seems hypnotized by this >absurd project.'' -------------- Galimatias to me. If anything goes wrong in a fusion process it should be expected to turn itself off automatically - simply because it is so difficult to get it to work (reach the Lawson criterion). In addition I don't see how the nuclear waste could be the same. Fusion would essentially yield neutron induced isotopes (shorter half-lives). If I am wrong, please correct me. My personal opinion only, Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers@hotmail.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jun 29 15:29:06 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed Jun 29 15:29:26 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] US reporting agencies In-Reply-To: <20050628171717.81485.qmail@web33809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050629132906.16166.qmail@web54308.mail.yahoo.com> What do you mean by overexposed? More that one image? Total dose? Are you looking to sue someone? --- Ron Tucknow wrote: > I have a question for you folks... > > To make the answer as easy as possible, I'll make > the > scenario somewhat far-fetched. > > A patient goes for a radiologic exam in a private > radiology office in the United States. The patient > was accidently overdosed with X-rays. After the > procedure, the radiologic technician tells the > patient > that she was overdosed with X-rays, but that he does > not want to report the incident for fear of > reprimand. > You can assume that the radiology office will side > with their technician pertaining any disputes. > > To whom can the patient report the incident? Why > would anyone believe her? > > Ron > > +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com From sandyfl at earthlink.net Wed Jun 29 15:47:42 2005 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Wed Jun 29 15:48:03 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] US reporting agencies In-Reply-To: <20050629132906.16166.qmail@web54308.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050628171717.81485.qmail@web33809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42C2440E.25798.54D48D8@localhost> On 29 Jun 2005 at 6:29, John Jacobus wrote: > > To whom can the patient report the incident? Why > > would anyone believe her? You simply call the local health department radiological health section, or, the state radiological health department. They regulate and inspect x-ray generating registrants. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From bcradsafers at hotmail.com Wed Jun 29 15:49:47 2005 From: bcradsafers at hotmail.com (Bjorn Cedervall) Date: Wed Jun 29 15:49:58 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Bicycle accident or collaps of the civilization (radioactive leaks) In-Reply-To: <20050625202332.91884.qmail@web54301.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >The comment by George Stanford reminded me of a quote attributed to George >Bernard Shaw: >"A newspaper is an institution that can't tell the difference between a >bicycle accident and the >collapse of a civilization." The quotation above matches some Swedish headlines today. "Radioactive leaks from Forsmark nuclear power plant to the Baltic Sea" etc. Real news is that some barrels in a waste depository have leaked a few cubic meters with a total of the order of 6-7 MBq (according to the best estimate I could get). The estimated dose to the environment will thus be increased (due to releases) from around 1xE-8 mSv to 1xE-7 mSv. Major newspapers, radio and TV stations are making some money on this today. If any of the above is wrong I will correct it ASAP. Links (examples) to some media for those who understand Swedish: http://www.expressen.se/index.jsp?a=307913 http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,666091,00.html http://www.tv4.se (click on WEBB-TV => "High radioactivity at Forsmark") http://www.sr.se/ekot/ My personal action and reflections only, Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers@hotmail.com From blc+ at pitt.edu Wed Jun 29 17:13:06 2005 From: blc+ at pitt.edu (Bernard Cohen) Date: Wed Jun 29 17:05:38 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! In-Reply-To: <42C2103C.6050804@chartertn.net> References: <20050628170850.TRZQ11036.lakermmtao01.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> <42C2103C.6050804@chartertn.net> Message-ID: <42C2BA82.1010509@pitt.edu> I believe the neutrons from fusion reactions are to be used to react with Lithium to produce tritium, which is then used for fuel. The kinetic energy of the neutrons would be the primary source of heat for generating electricity; I assume they would interact with water which thermalizes them and in turn is heated to produce steam. The rest of the energy release would be in kinetic energy of Helium nuclei and protons; at least some of this would be required to maintain the temperature of the plasma John Andrews wrote: > The problem as I see it with fusion is that all the execss energy is > given to neutrons. In order to convert this essentially thermal > energy of the neutrons into usable thermal energy we have to use > uranium as a blanket to convert the energy into fission energy using > the vastly greater energy of the fission products to convert to heat. > Lots of it. With that process we are back to all the problems we have > today of radioactive waste. The fusion process is pie in the sky > until we talk about the real problem of converting the fusion energy > into heat and then into electricity. > > John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennesse > > bobcherry@cox.net wrote: > >> ``Nuclear fusion poses the exact problems of nuclear fission in the >> production of radioactive waste, the risks of accidents and >> proliferation,'' said Frederic Miller, head of Greenpeace France's >> nuclear campaign, in an e-mailed statement. ``France seems hypnotized >> by this absurd project.'' -------------- >> >> I wrote a high school English paper on controlled nuclear fusion back >> in 1963, at a time when fusion power plants were about "ten years >> away." At one time, I intended to get my PhD in plasma physics, but >> the local draft board altered my plans and diverted my course. >> >> In my opinion, controlled nuclear fusion to produce electricity is >> the primary long-term solution to humanity's energy needs. Once it is >> online, it can eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels (hydrogen >> produced from water using hydrolysis would replace gasoline and >> natural gas) and nuclear fission for almost all needs. >> It is well known that the radioactive wastes are relatively >> short-lived and highly manageable, despite whatever Greenpeace might >> say to further its agenda. The reaction is so difficult to maintain >> that it can't run away; if something goes wrong, the reaction stops >> (some plasma physicists compare controlled nuclear fusion to >> squeezing Jello). And I would like an explanation of how controlled >> fusion leads to nuclear proliferation. >> >> The physics was done in the 30s. The engineering remains a formidable >> task of scaling and control. We need to get to it. >> >> Bob C >> >> _______________________________________________ >> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list >> radsafe@radlab.nl >> >> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and >> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: >> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html >> >> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings >> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list > radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and > understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From sandyfl at earthlink.net Wed Jun 29 17:04:44 2005 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Wed Jun 29 17:06:54 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive cesium leaks into Baltic from Swedish nuclear plant, no risk to public Message-ID: <42C2561C.2723.A4D238C@localhost> Index: Cesium leaks into Baltic from Swedish nuclear plant, no risk Congress Requests Review of Hanford Plant Russia wants to build more nuke reactors for Iran Nuclear project could solve energy woes--scientist Fukushima Pref OKs Tepco Reactor To Resume Operations -Kyodo ================================================= Radioactive cesium leaks into Baltic from Swedish nuclear plant, no risk to public STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - Radioactive cesium has leaked into the Baltic Sea from storage tanks at a nuclear power plant in central Sweden, but poses no risk to the public or the environment, the state nuclear authority said Wednesday. Even though cesium levels in the water are 10 times higher than normal, they are still well below what's allowed under Swedish law, the Swedish State Radiation Protection Institute said. It was not clear exactly how much radioactive waste water had leaked from the tanks at the Forsmark nuclear plant, 75 kilometers (46 miles) north of Stockholm. "We believe that storage tanks containing low- and medium-level radioactive waste have corroded and leaked into the drainage system, from where the water continues out into the Baltic Sea," institute spokeswoman Anki Hagg said. She said the institute had asked the plant management to take measures to stop further leaks. Forsmark accounts for roughly one-sixth of Sweden's electricity production. The first of its three reactors was started in 1980. Sweden has 10 nuclear reactors providing 50 percent of its electricity, but the government plans to phase them out over the coming decades. --------------- Congress Requests Review of Hanford Plant YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - In the latest setback to the government's largest construction project, a congressional subcommittee is calling for an investigation into a multibillion-dollar waste treatment plant at the Hanford nuclear reservation. Paul Anderson, a spokesman for the Government Accountability Office, confirmed Tuesday that Ohio Republican Rep. David Hobson and Indiana Democratic Rep. Peter Visclosky - the chairman and ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water - requested an audit of the project in a letter dated June 24. Anderson declined to release additional details or the letter, as did spokesmen for the committee members. However, the review is likely to focus on the burgeoning cost of the plant - a point that has been a continuing source of alarm for the Energy Department, which manages cleanup at the highly contaminated Hanford site. The cost of construction was estimated at $4.35 billion before the contract was awarded in 2000; it's grown to $5.8 billion. The plant is being built to treat millions of gallons of radioactive waste left from Cold War-era nuclear weapons production. It is located in south-central Washington. Under a cleanup pact signed by the Energy Department, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Washington state, the plant must be built by 2009. Gov. Christine Gregoire said in a statement that officials are prepared to enforce that deadline "unless the Department of Energy submits a change request that clearly justifies the need for any delays." For 40 years, the Hanford reservation made plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal. Today, work there centers on cleanup to be finished by 2035. ------------------- Russia wants to build more nuke reactors for Iran MOSCOW, June 28 (Reuters) - Russia wants to construct up to six new nuclear reactors for Iran, despite U.S. criticism of its assistance to the Islamic republic, Moscow's top nuclear boss was quoted as saying on Tuesday. Russia has pressed ahead with construction of Iran's first nuclear power plant near the southern city of Bushehr, dismissing Washington's belief that Tehran could use Moscow's technology and know-how to make an atom bomb. "When Iran announces new tenders to construct nuclear reactors, we'll take part in them," Alexander Rumyantsev, head of Russia's Atomic Energy Agency, told Itar-Tass news agency. "Tehran intends to build another six nuclear reactors." Rumyantsev's remarks came just days after Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow would continue developing nuclear ties with Iran after ultra-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election as president of the Islamic Republic last week. Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful. For Russia, Iran is a key market in the Middle East as it seeks a bigger share of the global nuclear industry, but Moscow is worried it may lose its near-monopoly status there as its Western rivals try to push into the Iranian market. Moscow and Tehran, whose nuclear ties date back to the early 1990s, signed a fuel supply deal earlier this year that paved the way for Bushehr to start up in late 2006. Once operational, Bushehr will generate 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Initiated before Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution and badly damaged during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the project was later revived with Russian help and has cost about $1 billion. -------------------- Nuclear project could solve energy woes--scientist LONDON, June 28 (Reuters) - If scientists succeed in building an experimental nuclear fusion reactor and making it work it could solve the world's energy problems for the next 1,000 years or more, a leading scientist said on Tuesday. After months of wrangling, France defeated a bid from Japan and signed a deal to build the 10-billion-euro ($12 billion) experimental reactor at Cadarache in the south of the country. Ian Fells, of the Royal Academy of Engineering in Britain and an expert on energy conversion, described the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) project backed by China, the EU, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States as a huge physics experiment. It is one which has enormous potential and could lead to the building of a prototype power station in about 30 years time. "If we can really make this work, there will be enough electricity to last the world for the next 1,000 to 2,000 years. So it is really quite important but quite difficult to do it," Fells said in an interview. In terms of the scientific and engineering difficulty involved, he compared it to landing a man on the moon. "I give it a 50-50 chance of success but the engineering is very difficult," said Fells. ITER would have an advantage over current nuclear reactors because it would be cleaner. It would not rely on enriched uranium fuel and it would not produce plutonium, which is a concern from a terrorism point of view. "The technology of this is the science of the hydrogen bomb," Fells said. "You take a couple of hydrogen atoms and you squeeze them together, you fuse them together, and they turn into an atom of helium and produce a great burp of energy." "This is turning mass into energy as with Einstein's celebrated equation E=MC2 (energy = mass times the speed of light squared)." Scientists know it could work because they know the hydrogen bomb works. But the problem they face is trying to do it in a controlled manner so the heat can be used to generate electricity. ITER seeks to mimic the way the sun produces energy, potentially providing an inexhaustible source of low-cost energy using seawater as fuel. The hydrogen atom used is deuterium which is a stable isotope of hydrogen. "The oceans are absolutely stuffed full of it," said Fells. Although ITER would be cleaner than current nuclear reactors it does pose some problems. "In the course of the reaction it produces a lot of neutrons and they get into the actual fabric of the machine and over years it becomes radioactive, so there is still a problem of decommissioning," said Fells. But he added that the potential for the technology, if it can be made to work, is so great it is really worthwhile putting in a large effort to see if it can succeed. ------------------- Fukushima Pref OKs Tepco Reactor To Resume Operations -Kyodo TOKYO -(Dow Jones)- Fukushima Prefecture decided Tuesday to allow Tokyo Electric Power Co. (9501.TO) to resume operations of the No. 1 reactor at its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in the northeastern Japan prefecture, Kyodo News reports. Of Tepco's 17 nuclear reactors in Japan, the No. 1 reactor at Fukushima is the last one that remains suspended. Tepco was forced to temporarily shut down its 17 nuclear-power facilities after it was revealed in August 2002 that the firm had covered up reports showing cracks in the structures of some reactors. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From bobcherry at cox.net Wed Jun 29 17:58:35 2005 From: bobcherry at cox.net (bobcherry@cox.net) Date: Wed Jun 29 17:58:59 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! Message-ID: <20050629155836.NWYD11036.lakermmtao01.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> As I recall from many years ago, tokamak-type fusion reactors may be able to convert their energy into electricity using magnetohydrodynamic generators, rather than the usual steam turbine generators. Bob C > > From: Bernard Cohen > Date: 2005/06/29 Wed AM 11:13:06 EDT > To: John Andrews > CC: radsafe@radlab.nl > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! > > I believe the neutrons from fusion reactions are to be used to react > with Lithium to produce tritium, which is then used for fuel. The > kinetic energy of the neutrons would be the primary source of heat for > generating electricity; I assume they would interact with water which > thermalizes them and in turn is heated to produce steam. The rest of the > energy release would be in kinetic energy of Helium nuclei and protons; > at least some of this would be required to maintain the temperature of > the plasma > > John Andrews wrote: > > > The problem as I see it with fusion is that all the execss energy is > > given to neutrons. In order to convert this essentially thermal > > energy of the neutrons into usable thermal energy we have to use > > uranium as a blanket to convert the energy into fission energy using > > the vastly greater energy of the fission products to convert to heat. > > Lots of it. With that process we are back to all the problems we have > > today of radioactive waste. The fusion process is pie in the sky > > until we talk about the real problem of converting the fusion energy > > into heat and then into electricity. > > > > John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennesse > > > > bobcherry@cox.net wrote: > > > >> ``Nuclear fusion poses the exact problems of nuclear fission in the > >> production of radioactive waste, the risks of accidents and > >> proliferation,'' said Frederic Miller, head of Greenpeace France's > >> nuclear campaign, in an e-mailed statement. ``France seems hypnotized > >> by this absurd project.'' -------------- > >> > >> I wrote a high school English paper on controlled nuclear fusion back > >> in 1963, at a time when fusion power plants were about "ten years > >> away." At one time, I intended to get my PhD in plasma physics, but > >> the local draft board altered my plans and diverted my course. > >> > >> In my opinion, controlled nuclear fusion to produce electricity is > >> the primary long-term solution to humanity's energy needs. Once it is > >> online, it can eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels (hydrogen > >> produced from water using hydrolysis would replace gasoline and > >> natural gas) and nuclear fission for almost all needs. > >> It is well known that the radioactive wastes are relatively > >> short-lived and highly manageable, despite whatever Greenpeace might > >> say to further its agenda. The reaction is so difficult to maintain > >> that it can't run away; if something goes wrong, the reaction stops > >> (some plasma physicists compare controlled nuclear fusion to > >> squeezing Jello). And I would like an explanation of how controlled > >> fusion leads to nuclear proliferation. > >> > >> The physics was done in the 30s. The engineering remains a formidable > >> task of scaling and control. We need to get to it. > >> > >> Bob C > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list > >> radsafe@radlab.nl > >> > >> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and > >> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > >> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >> > >> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > >> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > >> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list > > radsafe@radlab.nl > > > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and > > understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From bobcherry at cox.net Wed Jun 29 18:02:23 2005 From: bobcherry at cox.net (bobcherry@cox.net) Date: Wed Jun 29 18:02:43 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Magnetohydrodynamic Generators Message-ID: <20050629160224.YJMT18229.lakermmtao03.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> My memory hasn't totally failed (yet): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHD_dynamo Bob C From fd003f0606 at blueyonder.co.uk Wed Jun 29 18:11:56 2005 From: fd003f0606 at blueyonder.co.uk (Fred Dawson) Date: Wed Jun 29 18:11:38 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' cancer risk rise Message-ID: <002e01c57cc5$454553a0$0200a8c0@DG47BM0J> BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' cancer risk rise http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4629461.stm also see http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1516929,00.html Exposure to a low level of radiation is linked to a small increase in a person's cancer risk, a study of nuclear power station workers found. An international team studied over 407,000 workers in 15 countries, who were followed up for around 13 years. The British Medical Journal study estimates up to 2% of cancer deaths were due to radiation exposure. But they said the increased risk did not apply to people living near to power stations. Ionising radiation is a well known cancer-causing agent. Current radiation protection recommendations are to limit occupational doses to 100 millisieverts (mSv) over five years and doses to the public to 1 mSv per year. These guidelines were based mainly on data from survivors of the atomic bomb in Japan and the extrapolation of risks to the general population and radiation workers is controversial. Researchers studied the thousands of nuclear industry workers in order to get a better idea of their risk. Hiroshima Most were men and had been employed for at least one year in nuclear power production facilities, or in related activities such as research, waste management or fuel and weapons production. Ninety per cent of workers were exposed to a cumulative dose of under 50mSv, and less than 1% over 500mSv. Factors such as age, duration of employment, and socioeconomic status were taken into account when the researchers looked at the workers. Just under 200 died from leukaemias, and 6,519 from other cancers. The researchers say, that from their evidence, 1 to 2% of deaths from cancer among workers in this study may be attributable to radiation. The risk estimates from the study are consistent with those used for current radiation protection standards, they say. And they add that many of the workers in this study worked in the early years of the industry when doses tended to be higher than they are today. 'Vigilence' Dr Colin Muirhead, of the Radiological Protection Division of the Health Protection Agency, who worked on the study, told the BBC News website: "This is what we expected to see, because even with a low does of radiation, there would be a cancer risk. He added: "The levels of exposure we saw in this study are much lower than were seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "In absolute terms, it is a fairly small increase in risk." He said workers in the industry should be reassured by the study's findings. "At an individual level it will make a very small difference." And he said the results also fitted in with studies which had found no link between cancer risk and living near a nuclear power station. "It's certain that for the population, exposure would be much lower than what we're talking about here. "There is no inconsistency." Professor John Toy, Medical Director at Cancer Research UK, said: "Radiation is a very well known carcinogen. "This extremely large study shows an increased risk, albeit small, of cancer and most types of leukaemia associated with occupational low-dose radiation exposure." He added: "The radiation risk estimates are statistically comparable with those used for current radiation protection standards. "The nuclear industry must remain ever vigilant to ensure these standards are not breached and constantly endeavour to reduce the exposure of its workers to radiation." " Fred Dawson From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Wed Jun 29 18:26:47 2005 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Wed Jun 29 18:27:12 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Bicycle accident or collaps of the civilization(radioactive leaks) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c57cc7$5c19d4a0$bf572fd5@pc1> Bj?rn, I read both Expressen, Aftonbladet and sr.se and think that their messages are surprisingly objective, compared with what Austrian papers would have written. This has to be seen also with regard to the fact that the two papers do not have the best reputation...... What does not become clear from the links, is, where the effluent originated from. Was it from a storage of liquid waste? Was it from a repository (what the sr.se might suggest)? I have hard to believe, that the repository would be filled with water, which even more could easily escape to the sea and would be measured far below the sea level. -------------------------------------------------------- I just took a look at Dagens Nyheter, which is a much better reputed Swedish paper and the facts given there seem believable: Drainage water from a repository is collected in a tank and there elevated levels of Cs-137 have been measured. The total amount of such water collected per year is about ten to twelve m3. Since the concentrations are so low, it is possible to dispose of the water directly in the environment. So there is no leak to the environment. Best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] Im > Auftrag von Bjorn Cedervall > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. Juni 2005 15:50 > An: radsafe@radlab.nl > Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Bicycle accident or collaps of the > civilization(radioactive leaks) > > >The comment by George Stanford reminded me of a quote attributed to > George > >Bernard Shaw: > >"A newspaper is an institution that can't tell the difference between a > >bicycle accident and the > >collapse of a civilization." > > The quotation above matches some Swedish headlines today. "Radioactive > leaks > from Forsmark nuclear power plant to the Baltic Sea" etc. Real news is > that > some barrels in a waste depository have leaked a few cubic meters with a > total of the order of 6-7 MBq (according to the best estimate I could > get). > The estimated dose to the environment will thus be increased (due to > releases) from around 1xE-8 mSv to 1xE-7 mSv. Major newspapers, radio and > TV > stations are making some money on this today. > If any of the above is wrong I will correct it ASAP. > > Links (examples) to some media for those who understand Swedish: > http://www.expressen.se/index.jsp?a=307913 > http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,666091,00.html > http://www.tv4.se (click on WEBB-TV => "High radioactivity at Forsmark") > http://www.sr.se/ekot/ > > My personal action and reflections only, > > Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers@hotmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Wed Jun 29 18:31:18 2005 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Wed Jun 29 18:31:28 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] ITER - facts? Message-ID: <001001c57cc7$fa0d9f20$bf572fd5@pc1> I hope there is somebody at RADSAFE who could give the RADSAFE community facts (!!) about the Tokamak principle, its fuel, its working principle, its waste and the radiation protection problems to be expected. Thank you in advance! Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone (international) -43-699-1168-1319 phone (national) 0699-1168-1319 From sandyfl at earthlink.net Wed Jun 29 18:43:06 2005 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Wed Jun 29 18:44:24 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Message-ID: <42C26D2A.13965.AA7293A@localhost> Comments? Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless, a panel of prominent scientists concluded Wednesday. The finding by the National Academy of Sciences panel is viewed as critical because it is likely to significantly influence what radiation levels government agencies will allow at abandoned nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons production facilities and elsewhere. The nuclear industry,, as well as some independent scientists, have argued that there is a threshold of very low level radiation where exposure is not harmful, or possibly even beneficial. They said current risk modeling may exaggerate the health impact. The panel, after five years of study, rejected that claim. "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said Richard R. Monson, the panel chairman and a professor of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health. The committee gave support to the so-called "linear, no threshold" model that is currently the generally acceptable approach to radiation risk assessment. This approach assumes that the health risks from radiation exposure declines as the dose levels decline, but that each unit of radiation ? no matter how small ? still is assumed to cause cancer. The panel, formally known as the Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiaton, or BEIR, generally supported previous cancer risk estimates ? the last one by an earlier BEIR group in 1990. Contrary to assertions that risks from exposure from low-level radiation may have been overstated, the panel said "the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these (earlier) estimates." The committee examined doses of radiation of up to 100 millisievert, a measurement of accumulated radiation to an individual over a year. By comparison, a single chest X-ray accounts for 0.1 millisievert and average background radiation 3 millisievert. The committee estmated that 1 out of 100 people would likely develop solid cancer or leukemia from an exposure of 100 millisievert of radiation over a lifetime. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Wed Jun 29 18:46:14 2005 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto G. Raabe) Date: Wed Jun 29 18:46:45 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! In-Reply-To: References: <42C2103C.6050804@chartertn.net> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050629093513.027a8d50@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> June 29, 2005 I believe that past studies of fusion reactor risks to the people have targeted large quantities of C-14 produced by neutrons hitting N-14 in air. Rapid oxidation of free carbon leads to carbon dioxide whose release the the atmosphere is not readily preventable. Of course, there are also going to be large quantities of contaminated waste materials produced by neutron activation of reactor components and other materials in and around a fusion reactor. So fusion reactors may produce large quantities of radioactive waste. Otto ********************************************** Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP Center for Health & the Environment (Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road) University of California, Davis, CA 95616 E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140 *********************************************** From paksbi at rit.edu Wed Jun 29 19:14:20 2005 From: paksbi at rit.edu (A Karam) Date: Wed Jun 29 19:14:36 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' cancer risk rise Message-ID: <8C7AD67141A06D499823B280003E6C02EDF1D9@svits11.main.ad.rit.edu> I took a quick look at this paper. The biggest concern I have with it is that the authors do not show the number of cancer deaths for each dose category, only total cancers. The authors give total cancers, total deaths, collective cumulative dose, and average individual dose, but nothing from which a dose/response relationship can be established. There is no way to tell, for example, if the lower-dose groups had more, fewer, or no difference in cancers versus what would be expected. As the data are reported, there is no way to establish any sort of dose/risk relationship. Because of this, I'm afraid I didn't learn much from this paper except that the authors were very diligent in collecting data. Andy P. Andrew Karam, Ph.D., CHP Research Assistant Professor Rochester Institute of Technology From sandyfl at earthlink.net Wed Jun 29 19:15:05 2005 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Wed Jun 29 19:16:23 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: US reporting agencies In-Reply-To: <8E68022827007542AAF3D63A85E8CB04370974@vhadetexc1.v11.med.va.gov> Message-ID: <42C274A9.27907.14FC05@localhost> Question for federal regulators who frequent the list. I believe that OSHA regulates x-ray generating equipment used in federal facilities. Is this correct? ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From frantaj at aecl.ca Wed Jun 29 19:31:07 2005 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Wed Jun 29 19:31:33 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Magnetohydrodynamic Generators Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A433@sps13.aecl.ca> -----Original Message----- From: bobcherry@cox.net My memory hasn't totally failed (yet): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHD_dynamo -----Original Message----- As I recall from many years ago, tokamak-type fusion reactors may be able to convert their energy into electricity using magnetohydrodynamic generators, rather than the usual steam turbine generators. =============== Fusion is not unique in that respect -- see for example http://www.inspi.ufl.edu/gcr.pdf Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From Gerald.Nicholls at dep.state.nj.us Wed Jun 29 19:56:56 2005 From: Gerald.Nicholls at dep.state.nj.us (Gerald Nicholls) Date: Wed Jun 29 19:57:44 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] ITER - facts? Message-ID: There is quite a bit of general information available at the ITER site www.iter.org - including diagrams of the basic components of the device and its operation. Gerald P. Nicholls NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection 609-633-7964 gerald.nicholl@dep.state.nj.us >>> Franz Sch?nhofer 6/29/05 12:31 PM >>> I hope there is somebody at RADSAFE who could give the RADSAFE community facts (!!) about the Tokamak principle, its fuel, its working principle, its waste and the radiation protection problems to be expected. Thank you in advance! Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone (international) -43-699-1168-1319 phone (national) 0699-1168-1319 _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From rhelbig at california.com Wed Jun 29 20:16:53 2005 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Wed Jun 29 20:18:43 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Lawrence Livermore References: <20050629160224.YJMT18229.lakermmtao03.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> Message-ID: <008601c57cd6$dc6b6b00$e84a5142@roger1> I would like to contact anyone who works at/used to work at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who might have known Leuren Moret. She advertises herself as follows "a whistle-blower from Lawrence Livermore" and uses that as her cachet to show that she is in fact knowledgeable about depleted uranium. Thank you. Roger Helbig rhelbig@california.com From MRDupray at lbl.gov Wed Jun 29 20:24:45 2005 From: MRDupray at lbl.gov (MRDupray) Date: Wed Jun 29 20:25:12 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] ITER - facts? In-Reply-To: <001001c57cc7$fa0d9f20$bf572fd5@pc1> Message-ID: <000001c57cd7$d44c9a10$cad3f383@lbl.gov> http://fusion.gat.com/ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Franz Sch?nhofer Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:31 AM To: RADSAFE Subject: [ RadSafe ] ITER - facts? I hope there is somebody at RADSAFE who could give the RADSAFE community facts (!!) about the Tokamak principle, its fuel, its working principle, its waste and the radiation protection problems to be expected. Thank you in advance! Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone (international) -43-699-1168-1319 phone (national) 0699-1168-1319 _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From don.mercado at lmco.com Wed Jun 29 20:13:17 2005 From: don.mercado at lmco.com (Mercado, Don) Date: Wed Jun 29 20:59:52 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Message-ID: <3D92CA467E530B4E8295214868F840FE463A65@emss01m12.us.lmco.com> Where is this report published and what studies did they review to come up with this conclusion? -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Sandy Perle Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:43 AM To: radsafe; powernet@hps1.org Subject: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Comments? Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless, a panel of prominent scientists concluded Wednesday. The finding by the National Academy of Sciences panel is viewed as critical because it is likely to significantly influence what radiation levels government agencies will allow at abandoned nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons production facilities and elsewhere. The nuclear industry,, as well as some independent scientists, have argued that there is a threshold of very low level radiation where exposure is not harmful, or possibly even beneficial. They said current risk modeling may exaggerate the health impact. The panel, after five years of study, rejected that claim. "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said Richard R. Monson, the panel chairman and a professor of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health. The committee gave support to the so-called "linear, no threshold" model that is currently the generally acceptable approach to radiation risk assessment. This approach assumes that the health risks from radiation exposure declines as the dose levels decline, but that each unit of radiation - no matter how small - still is assumed to cause cancer. The panel, formally known as the Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiaton, or BEIR, generally supported previous cancer risk estimates - the last one by an earlier BEIR group in 1990. Contrary to assertions that risks from exposure from low-level radiation may have been overstated, the panel said "the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these (earlier) estimates." The committee examined doses of radiation of up to 100 millisievert, a measurement of accumulated radiation to an individual over a year. By comparison, a single chest X-ray accounts for 0.1 millisievert and average background radiation 3 millisievert. The committee estmated that 1 out of 100 people would likely develop solid cancer or leukemia from an exposure of 100 millisievert of radiation over a lifetime. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com Wed Jun 29 21:18:16 2005 From: dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com (dckosloff@firstenergycorp.com) Date: Wed Jun 29 21:18:48 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Message-ID: Sandy Perle wrote; >Comments? >Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer >By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer >WASHINGTON - The preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even >very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health >problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed >as harmless, a panel of prominent scientists concluded Wednesday. The information presented below is obviously only my own twisted and cynical opinion. I suspect that Hebert read only the summary of the report, particularly since it supports his bias. I noticed that the NAS report summary on arsenic appeared to support the politically-correct position on arsenic in drinking water. However, upon reading the entire report I noted a significant disconnect between the report summary and the body of the report. The summary wasn't dishonest, but it could only have been constructed by skewing almost all the other information in the body of the NAS report in the "proper" direction. In reviewing the commentary on the issue, it was clear to me that few people had read the entire content (or even beyond the summary) of the NAS report. That changed my view on the information presented in NAS report summaries and the associated reporting. The leadership of the NAS is made up of prominent scientists. Scientists generally become prominent because they want to be prominent. Thus they present information in a way slanted to please the cultural elite and biased writers like Hebert. They do not comment on the small brown objects floating in the punch bowel. They instead compliment the host on the beauty of the bowel and the fine color of the punch. The elites and certain writers are the gatekeepers for cultural prominence. I doubt that they would lie, but there are many ways to tell the truth. For a good example, look at Bruce Ames. When he was an anti-industrial crusader, he was lionized by the gatekeepers. But when he discovered the broader truth and was (yikes!) scrupulously honest, clear and precise in discussing his discovery, the gates swung shut. Most people don't even know who literally gave us the Ames Test. For the vast majority of people, politics takes precedence over truth in how they choose to run their lives. Scientists are people. In addition, the first sentence of Hebert's story is false. The "preponderance of scientific evidence" cannot "show" anything. It can only imply a possible outcome or indicate a likelihood that the truth may lie in a certain direction. If there is only preponderance of scientific evidence, then the implications and indications are weak at best. If the NAS really believed what is reported, where are the calls to evacuate Colorado? If it would save only one life, it should be done. Sincerely, Don Kosloff ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jun 29 21:18:40 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed Jun 29 21:18:51 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] News Announcement: Senate Appropriations Language on Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Message-ID: <20050629191840.37046.qmail@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> -----Original Message----- From: fyi@aip.org [mailto:fyi@aip.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:36 AM To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS) Subject: FYI #102: Senate Language on Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 102: June 29, 2005 Senate Appropriations Language on Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing The approach that House and Senate appropriators have taken in their report language regarding the disposition of spent nuclear fuel from the nation's utility plants differs greatly. As previously reported, House Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman David Hobson (R-OH) and his colleagues put notably exacting language in their FY 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations report about the transport of spent fuel to centralized above ground interim storage locations and the development of an integrated spent fuel reprocessing plan (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/082.html.) The Senate's counterpart report, written by Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) does not include language similar to the House report. This report language is below (to read all of report 109-084, see http://thomas.loc.gov/ under "Committee Information.") "RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: "Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative- The Committee recommendation includes $85,000,000, an increase of $15,000,000 over the budget request. The initiative should continue to focus on development of fuel cycle technologies that minimize the toxicity of final waste products resulting from spent fuel while recovering energy remaining in spent fuel; minimize proliferation concerns and environmental impacts of the fuel cycle and minimize the number of reprocessing steps so as to minimize system costs. The initiative shall assist the Secretary with development of alternative technology options. "Based on the success learned at the Savannah River Technology Center of the Uranium Extraction Technology, known as UREX in 2002, the Committee expects the Department to expand its efforts to advance research of aqueous spent fuel treatment and to begin the engineering scale demonstrations. The Committee recommends an additional $10,000,000 to accelerate the design activities associated with a proposed Engineering Scale Demonstration [ESD]. The ESD will provide the United States with the capability to conduct research and development into advanced spent fuel separations and transmutation from laboratory scale through engineering scale prior to commercial deployment. The budget request provided funds for pre-conceptual design activities only. This funding will allow completion of the conceptual design in fiscal year 2006 and enable preengineering design to commence in fiscal year 2007. In addition to studying light water reactors, the Committee expects the Department to evaluate fast reactors that are capable of destroying larger amounts of long-lived radioactive material. "To provide confidence in the technology options proposed, the project will use Department of Energy national laboratory and university expertise to perform research and development of advanced technologies for spent fuel treatment and transmutation of plutonium, higher actinides and long-lived fission products. Advanced nuclear material recycle and safeguard technologies, proliferation-resistant nuclear fuels, and transmutation systems shall be investigated. Both reactor-based and a combination of reactor and accelerator-based transmutation approaches may be included as part of the research and systems analysis. "The project shall use international and university collaborations to provide cost effective use of research funding. The Committee has provided an additional $6,000,000 to the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative for the UNLV [University of Nevada, Las Vegas] Research Foundation and directs the Department to enter into a 5-year cooperative agreement to study deep burn-up of nuclear fuel and other fuel cycle research to eliminate the need for multiple spent nuclear fuel repositories, to eliminate weapons useable material from disposed spent fuel, and to maintain forever potential radiological releases from a repository below currently legislated limits. "The Committee is aware of the excellent recent progress in the jointly funded U.S./Russian program to develop the GT-MHR [Gas Turbine - Modular Helium Reactor]. The recent completion of the particle fuel fabrication and testing facilities in Russia along with continued progress in the area of the power conversion system indicates the continued support of the Russians for the development of this option. The Committee also notes that the GT-MHR is a leading Gen IV reactor type. Within the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, $3,000,000 is provided for the Idaho Accelerator Center and the Department is directed to enter into a 5-year cooperative agreement with IAC. The Department is provided $7,000,000 to develop a Nuclear Energy Materials Test Station at Los Alamos Neutron Science Center to advance the technology needed to support the materials and fuel experiments required by the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and for the exploration of Generation IV fast neutron spectrum systems. Since the closure of the Fast Flux Test Facility, resulting in no domestic fast neutron source for conducting actinide transmutation, the Materials Test Station will advance the development of improved fuel cycles that can reduce the quantity, heat generation and toxicity of spent nuclear fuel. The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for the Center for Materials Reliability and $750,000 for nuclear transportation hazard research at the University of Nevada-Reno." The House has passed its version of the FY 2006 funding bill. The Senate bill awaits action on the floor, after which differences in the bills will be resolved in a conference committee. ############### Richard M. Jones Media and Government Relations Division The American Institute of Physics fyi@aip.org http://www.aip.org/gov (301) 209-3094 ##END########## +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lavelyp at uclink.berkeley.edu Wed Jun 29 22:03:14 2005 From: lavelyp at uclink.berkeley.edu (Paul Lavely) Date: Wed Jun 29 22:03:26 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Med Rad Tech Oversight and CA proposed rule In-Reply-To: References: <20050624161539.95030.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > >By the way, a California legislator is proposing a law that would >require tracking of patient medical exposures and that MDs consider >the history in making a decision as to tests. > >Paul A couple of folks asked me for more details. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0901-0950/ab_929_bill_20050628_amended_sen.html BILL NUMBER: AB 929 AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 28, 2005 AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 13, 2005 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 27, 2005 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 25, 2005 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 4, 2005 INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Oropeza re FEBRUARY 18, 2005 An act to add Article 5 (commencing with Section 114897) to Chapter 6 of Part 9 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to radiation technology. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 929, as amended, Oropeza. Radiologic technology: radiation exposure. Under existing law, the State Department of Health Services administers provisions that establish standards for the education, training, and experience of persons who use radiologic technology on human beings. Existing law also requires the department to adopt registration and certification regulations for mammography equipment. This bill would require the Radiologic Health Branch of the department to adopt regulations that require personnel and facilities using radiation-producing equipment for medical and dental purposes to maintain and implement quality assurance standards that meet or exceed the existing mammography standards for the protection of the public health and safety. More, more, more . . . -- **** Paul Lavely Radiation Safety Officer Environment, Health & Safety UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-1150 Tel: (510) 643-7976 Fax: (510) 643-9495 From luke.mccormick at dhs.gov Wed Jun 29 22:10:39 2005 From: luke.mccormick at dhs.gov (Mccormick, Luke I) Date: Wed Jun 29 22:04:59 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: US reporting agencies Message-ID: OSHA and FDA regulate us. Luke McCormick US Customs & Border Protection ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: US reporting agencies Author: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl Date: 6/29/2005 1:15 PM Question for federal regulators who frequent the list. I believe that OSHA regulates x-ray generating equipment used in federal facilities. Is this correct? ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ . From luke.mccormick at dhs.gov Wed Jun 29 22:19:14 2005 From: luke.mccormick at dhs.gov (Mccormick, Luke I) Date: Wed Jun 29 22:10:06 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: US reporting agencies Message-ID: OSHA and FDA regulate us. Luke McCormick US Customs & Border Protection ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: US reporting agencies Author: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl Date: 6/29/2005 1:15 PM Question for federal regulators who frequent the list. I believe that OSHA regulates x-ray generating equipment used in federal facilities. Is this correct? ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ . From Peter.Vernig at med.va.gov Wed Jun 29 22:16:49 2005 From: Peter.Vernig at med.va.gov (Peter.Vernig@med.va.gov) Date: Wed Jun 29 22:16:45 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HEPA filters for radioisotope fume hoods Message-ID: Somebody not too long ago, say 1 to 3 years informed me why so many places have HEPA filtration of fume hoods where radioisotopes are used. In virtually all research situations dispersible powered radioactive material is not used so HEPAs make no sense. I have seen them at NASA's Ames Research Center and UC Berkeley both institutions should know better. My recollection is that it was a building code or "best practice" that some ill advised agency put into place. If the person that sent me the information or anybody else knows about it I would greatly appreciate getting it retransmitted to me. I have just discovered such an arrangement and in order to kill it, it would be very helpful to know the source of the practice. Any opinions in this e-mail are solely those of the author, and are not represented as those of the VA Eastern Colorado HCS, the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, or the US Government. Peter G. Vernig, Radiation Safety Officer, MS-115, VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, 1055 Clermont St. Denver, CO 80220, peter.vernig@med.va.gov, Phone= 303.399.8020 x2447; Fax = 303.393.5026, alternate fax, 303.393.5248 "...whatever is true, whatever is noble, 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 From Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us Wed Jun 29 22:28:07 2005 From: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us (Jim Hardeman) Date: Wed Jun 29 22:28:54 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII Phase 2 Report * "Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation May Cause Harm" Message-ID: Colleagues * I thought y'all might be interested in this. The National Research Council released the BEIR VII Phase 2 report today ... the link is: URL = http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/ ... and it's the top news article. Press release follows. Jim Hardeman Jim_Hardeman@dnr.state.ga.us =================== Date: June 29, 2005 Contacts: Vanee Vines, Senior Media Relations Officer Megan Petty, Media Relations Assistant Office of News and Public Information 202-334-2138; e-mail FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation May Cause Harm WASHINGTON -- A preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even low doses of ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, are likely to pose some risk of adverse health effects, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council. The report's focus is low-dose, low-LET -- "linear energy transfer" -- ionizing radiation that is energetic enough to break biomolecular bonds. In living organisms, such radiation can cause DNA damage that eventually leads to cancers. However, more research is needed to determine whether low doses of radiation may also cause other health problems, such as heart disease and stroke, which are now seen with high doses of low-LET radiation. The study committee defined low doses as those ranging from nearly zero to about 100 millisievert (mSv) -- units that measure radiation energy deposited in living tissue. The radiation dose from a chest X-ray is about 0.1 mSv. In the United States, people are exposed on average to about 3 mSv of natural "background" radiation annually. The committee's report develops the most up-to-date and comprehensive risk estimates for cancer and other health effects from exposure to low-level ionizing radiation. In general, the report supports previously reported risk estimates for solid cancer and leukemia, but the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these estimates. Specifically, the committee's thorough review of available biological and biophysical data supports a "linear, no-threshold" (LNT) risk model, which says that the smallest dose of low-level ionizing radiation has the potential to cause an increase in health risks to humans. In the past, some researchers have argued that the LNT model exaggerates adverse health effects, while others have said that it underestimates the harm. The preponderance of evidence supports the LNT model, this new report says. "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said committee chair Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. "The health risks * particularly the development of solid cancers in organs * rise proportionally with exposure. At low doses of radiation, the risk of inducing solid cancers is very small. As the overall lifetime exposure increases, so does the risk." The report is the seventh in a series on the biological effects of ionizing radiation. Assessing Health Risks The committee's risk models for exposure to low-level ionizing radiation were based on a sex and age distribution similar to that of the entire U.S. population, and refer to the risk that an individual would face over his or her life span. These models predict that about one out of 100 people would likely develop solid cancer or leukemia from an exposure of 0.1 Sv (100 mSv). About 42 additional people in the same group would be expected to develop solid cancer or leukemia from other causes. Roughly half of these cancers would result in death. These particular estimates are uncertain, however, because of limitations in the data used to develop risk models. Survivors of atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, were the primary sources of data for estimating risks of most solid cancers and leukemia from exposure to ionizing radiation. The committee's review included an examination of updated cancer-incidence data from tumor registries of the survivors, and of research data on solid cancer deaths -- which is now more abundant because the number of deaths available for analysis has nearly doubled since the Research Council published its previous report on this topic in 1990. The committee combined this information with data on people who had been medically exposed to radiation to estimate risks of breast cancer in women and thyroid cancer. Data from additional medical studies and from studies of people exposed to radiation through their occupations also were evaluated and found to be compatible with the committee's statistical models. Follow-up studies should continue for the indefinite future, the report says. Adverse hereditary health effects that could be attributed to radiation have not been found in studies of children whose parents were exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs. However, studies of mice and other organisms have produced extensive data showing that radiation-induced cell mutations in sperm and eggs can be passed on to offspring, the report says. There is no reason to believe that such mutations could not also be passed on to human offspring. The failure to observe such effects in Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably reflects an insufficiently large survivor population. Follow-up studies of people who receive computed tomography (CT) scans, especially children, should be conducted, the report adds. Also needed are studies of infants who are exposed to diagnostic radiation because catheters have been placed in their hearts, as well as infants who receive multiple X-rays to monitor pulmonary development. CT scans, often referred to as whole body scans, result in higher doses of radiation than typically experienced with conventional X-rays. Sources of Ionizing Radiation People are exposed to natural background ionizing radiation from the universe, the ground, and basic activities such as eating, drinking, and breathing. These sources account for about 82 percent of human exposure. Nationwide, man-made radiation comprises 18 percent of human exposure. In this overall category, medical X-rays and nuclear medicine account for about 79 percent, the report says. Elements in consumer products -- such as tobacco, tap water, and building materials -- account for another 16 percent. Occupational exposure, fallout, and the use of nuclear fuel constitute roughly 5 percent of the man-made component nationwide. Factors that could increase exposure include greater use of radiation for medical purposes, working around radioactive materials, and smoking tobacco. Living at low altitudes, where there is less cosmic radiation, and living and working on the upper floors of buildings, where there is less radon gas -- a primary source of natural ionizing radiation -- are factors that could decrease exposure. The report was sponsored by the U.S. departments of Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows. Copies of Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII - Phase 2) will be available this summer from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above). [ This news release and report are available at http://national-academies.org ] NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Division on Earth and Life Studies Board on Radiation Effects Research Committee to Assess Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation Richard R. Monson, M.D., Sc.D. (chair) Associate Dean for Professional Education, and Professor of Epidemiology School of Public Health Harvard University Boston James E. Cleaver, Ph.D.(1) (vice chair) Professor of Dermatology Cancer Center and Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry University of California San Francisco Herbert L. Abrams, M.D. (2) Professor Emeritus of Radiology Stanford University Medical School, and Member in Residence Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation Stanford, Calif. Eula Bingham, Ph.D. (2) Professor of Environmental Health University of Cincinnati Cincinnati Patricia A. Buffler, Ph.D. (2) Kenneth and Marjorie Kaiser Chair of Cancer Epidemiology, and Professor of Epidemiology School of Public Health University of California Berkeley Elisabeth Cardis, Ph.D. Chief, Unit of Radiation and Cancer International Agency for Research on Cancer Lyon, France Roger Cox, Ph.D. Director National Radiological Protection Board Chilton, United Kingdom Scott Davis, Ph.D. Professor and Chair Department of Epidemiology School of Public Health and Community Medicine University of Washington, and Full Member Program in Epidemiology Division of Public Health Sciences Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center Seattle William C. Dewey, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Radiation Oncology University of California San Francisco Ethel S. Gilbert, Ph.D. Biostatistician Radiation Epidemiology Branch National Cancer Institute Bethesda, Md. Albrecht Kellerer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus University of Munich Munich, Germany Daniel Krewski, Ph.D., M.H.A. Director McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, and Professor of Medicine and of Epidemiology and Community Medicine University of Ottawa Ontario, Canada Tomas Lindahl, M.D. Director Clare Hall Laboratories Cancer Research U.K. London Katherine E. Rowan, Ph.D. Professor and Associate Chair Department of Communication George Mason University Fairfax, Va. K. Sankaranarayanan, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Department of Toxicogenetics Leiden University Medical Centre Leiden, Netherlands Daniel W. Schafer, Ph.D. Professor Department of Statistics Oregon State University Corvallis Robert L. Ullrich, Ph.D. Barbara Cox Anthony University Chair in Oncology Departments of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences and of Clinical Sciences Colorado State University Fort Collins RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF Rick Jostes, Ph.D. Study Director Evan B. Douple, Ph.D. Director Board on Radiation Effects Research (1) Member, National Academy of Sciences (2) Member, Institute of Medicine From alstonchris at netscape.net Wed Jun 29 22:58:20 2005 From: alstonchris at netscape.net (alstonchris@netscape.net) Date: Wed Jun 29 22:58:48 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Message-ID: <024D23EC.7C75BD66.48616B36@netscape.net> It's BEIR VII; you can get it from the National Academy Press of the National Academy of Sciences. Cheers cja "Mercado, Don" wrote: >Where is this report published and what studies did they review to come >up with this conclusion? > >-----Original Message----- >From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On >Behalf Of Sandy Perle >Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:43 AM >To: radsafe; powernet@hps1.org >Subject: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer > > >Comments? > >Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer >By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer > >WASHINGTON - The preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even >very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health >problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed >as harmless, a panel of prominent scientists concluded Wednesday. > >The finding by the ?National Academy of Sciences panel is viewed as >critical because it is likely to significantly influence what >radiation levels government agencies will allow at abandoned nuclear >power plants, nuclear weapons production facilities and elsewhere. > >The nuclear industry,, as well as some independent scientists, have >argued that there is a threshold of very low level radiation where >exposure is not harmful, or possibly even beneficial. They said >current risk modeling may exaggerate the health impact. > >The panel, after five years of study, rejected that claim. > >"The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of >exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be >demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said Richard R. Monson, >the panel chairman and a professor of epidemiology at Harvard's >School of Public Health. > >The committee gave support to the so-called "linear, no threshold" >model that is currently the generally acceptable approach to >radiation risk assessment. This approach assumes that the health >risks from radiation exposure declines as the dose levels decline, >but that each unit of radiation - no matter how small - still is >assumed to cause cancer. > >The panel, formally known as the Committee on Biological Effects of >Ionizing Radiaton, or BEIR, generally supported previous cancer risk >estimates - the last one by an earlier BEIR group in 1990. > >Contrary to assertions that risks from exposure from low-level >radiation may have been overstated, the panel said "the availability >of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these >(earlier) estimates." > >The committee examined doses of radiation of up to 100 millisievert, >a measurement of accumulated radiation to an individual over a year. >By comparison, a single chest X-ray accounts for 0.1 millisievert and >average background radiation 3 millisievert. > >The committee estmated that 1 out of 100 people would likely develop >solid cancer or leukemia from an exposure of 100 millisievert of >radiation over a lifetime. > >------------------------------------- >Sandy Perle >Senior Vice President, Technical Operations >Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. >2652 McGaw Avenue >Irvine, CA 92614 > >Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 ?Extension 2306 >Fax:(949) 296-1902 > >E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com >E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net > >Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ >Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ > > >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list >radsafe@radlab.nl > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood >the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: >http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings >visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $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 From jimm at WPI.EDU Wed Jun 29 23:03:31 2005 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Wed Jun 29 23:08:46 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Message-ID: They announced the report will be pub'd (by NAP) "this summer." There is a PDF of the pre-pub, 'unproofed', version provided to the media. (733 pages, almost 5 MB) I'll pass on the "what studies Q" for the moment!? :-) Do you want to do a review? Regards, Jim Muckerheide ________________________________ From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl on behalf of Mercado, Don Sent: Wed 6/29/2005 2:13 PM To: Sandy Perle; radsafe; powernet@hps1.org Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Where is this report published and what studies did they review to come up with this conclusion? -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Sandy Perle Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:43 AM To: radsafe; powernet@hps1.org Subject: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Comments? Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless, a panel of prominent scientists concluded Wednesday. The finding by the National Academy of Sciences panel is viewed as critical because it is likely to significantly influence what radiation levels government agencies will allow at abandoned nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons production facilities and elsewhere. The nuclear industry,, as well as some independent scientists, have argued that there is a threshold of very low level radiation where exposure is not harmful, or possibly even beneficial. They said current risk modeling may exaggerate the health impact. The panel, after five years of study, rejected that claim. "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said Richard R. Monson, the panel chairman and a professor of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health. The committee gave support to the so-called "linear, no threshold" model that is currently the generally acceptable approach to radiation risk assessment. This approach assumes that the health risks from radiation exposure declines as the dose levels decline, but that each unit of radiation - no matter how small - still is assumed to cause cancer. The panel, formally known as the Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiaton, or BEIR, generally supported previous cancer risk estimates - the last one by an earlier BEIR group in 1990. Contrary to assertions that risks from exposure from low-level radiation may have been overstated, the panel said "the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these (earlier) estimates." The committee examined doses of radiation of up to 100 millisievert, a measurement of accumulated radiation to an individual over a year. By comparison, a single chest X-ray accounts for 0.1 millisievert and average background radiation 3 millisievert. The committee estmated that 1 out of 100 people would likely develop solid cancer or leukemia from an exposure of 100 millisievert of radiation over a lifetime. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From WKOLB at arinc.com Wed Jun 29 23:08:59 2005 From: WKOLB at arinc.com (Kolb, William (WKOLB)) Date: Wed Jun 29 23:09:19 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] LNT in the news Message-ID: <9F2ABF88F1AD85459BC13BE147EAFFD40AAB7D4D@ANPMB1.arinc.com> Low radiation levels pose cancer risk Scientists say no threshold below which exposure is harmless The Associated Press Updated: 4:42 p.m. ET June 29, 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8389834/ Bill Wkolb ARINC Inc. From ben.morgan at pgnmail.com Wed Jun 29 23:10:39 2005 From: ben.morgan at pgnmail.com (Morgan, Ben) Date: Wed Jun 29 23:11:43 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Message-ID: <81E468008807D04DB790FBD00E98553D114698@nt000546.oak.zone1.progress-energy.com> You can read the report online or purchase a copy at http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html Ben ben.morgan@pgnmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Mercado, Don Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 2:13 PM To: Sandy Perle; radsafe; powernet@hps1.org Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Where is this report published and what studies did they review to come up with this conclusion? -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Sandy Perle Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:43 AM To: radsafe; powernet@hps1.org Subject: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Comments? Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless, a panel of prominent scientists concluded Wednesday. The finding by the National Academy of Sciences panel is viewed as critical because it is likely to significantly influence what radiation levels government agencies will allow at abandoned nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons production facilities and elsewhere. The nuclear industry,, as well as some independent scientists, have argued that there is a threshold of very low level radiation where exposure is not harmful, or possibly even beneficial. They said current risk modeling may exaggerate the health impact. The panel, after five years of study, rejected that claim. "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said Richard R. Monson, the panel chairman and a professor of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health. The committee gave support to the so-called "linear, no threshold" model that is currently the generally acceptable approach to radiation risk assessment. This approach assumes that the health risks from radiation exposure declines as the dose levels decline, but that each unit of radiation - no matter how small - still is assumed to cause cancer. The panel, formally known as the Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiaton, or BEIR, generally supported previous cancer risk estimates - the last one by an earlier BEIR group in 1990. Contrary to assertions that risks from exposure from low-level radiation may have been overstated, the panel said "the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these (earlier) estimates." The committee examined doses of radiation of up to 100 millisievert, a measurement of accumulated radiation to an individual over a year. By comparison, a single chest X-ray accounts for 0.1 millisievert and average background radiation 3 millisievert. The committee estmated that 1 out of 100 people would likely develop solid cancer or leukemia from an exposure of 100 millisievert of radiation over a lifetime. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Wed Jun 29 23:11:58 2005 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto G. Raabe) Date: Wed Jun 29 23:12:30 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' cancer risk rise In-Reply-To: <8C7AD67141A06D499823B280003E6C02EDF1D9@svits11.main.ad.rit .edu> References: <8C7AD67141A06D499823B280003E6C02EDF1D9@svits11.main.ad.rit.edu> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050629133331.0330fcb8@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> June 29, 2005 Today's publication on the British Medical Journal of the paper "Risk of cancer after low doses of ionizing radiation:retrospective cohort study in 15 counties" by Cardis, and 49 other prominent authors promises to be treated as the definitive study of radiation-induced cancer among radiation workers. The is probably the most reliable of all the radiation worker epidemiology studies because of its size and excellently qualified and unbiased authors. A cohort of 407,391 radiation workers in Canada, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It concludes that "...1-2% of deaths from cancer among workers in this cohort may be attributable to radiation." It concludes that the findings are consistent with the linear risk estimates obtained from the RERF studies of Atomic Bomb survivors. A reading of the paper shows that there was a significant increase in solid cancer cases (increased relative risk of 0.97 with 95% confidence range from 0.14-0.97) in radiation workers based on a linear dose-response model. (Leukemia was not significantly increased.) The shape of the dose-response curve is, therefore, uncertain since these results may be driven by cancer in the most highly exposed workers. There is no independent control group in the study. When lung cancer is separated from the other solid cancers, there is no significant increase in cancer rate for all the other types of cancers combined. Although the researchers cite reasons for assuming that the results are not seriously affected by smoking, almost all lung cancer is caused by cigarette smoking and it may not be possible to appropriately correct these data for the action of this strong carcinogen among the workers. The Canadian cohort was the only cohort reported that showed a significantly increased cancer risk. If the Canadian data are omitted, the data from the other 14 countries did not demonstrate a significant increase in cancer rates as a function of radiation dose. Even though this is a well-done study it depends on a linear model and its main conclusion is depends on assuming that lung cancer rates are not confounded by smoking or other possible factors among the workers. Otto ********************************************** Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP Center for Health & the Environment (Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road) University of California, Davis, CA 95616 E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140 *********************************************** From Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil Wed Jun 29 23:26:49 2005 From: Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil (Falo, Gerald A Dr KADIX) Date: Wed Jun 29 23:31:02 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Message-ID: <357F1A279A378A408DFDF7B82794EF02016A95A7@AMEDMLNARMC138.amed.ds.army.mil> All, BEIR-VII - Phase 2 is now available from: www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/030909156X?OpenDocument . You can hear the webcast (just less than an hour) at: www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/ Jerry ________________________________ The statements and opinions expressed herein are my responsibility; no one else (certainly not my employer) is responsible, but I still reserve the right to make mistakes. Don't panic! - Douglas Adams in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP Kadix Systems U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine - Health Physics Program jerry.falo@us.army.mil 410-436-4852 From richard.t.whitman at dhs.gov Wed Jun 29 23:43:42 2005 From: richard.t.whitman at dhs.gov (Whitman, Richard T) Date: Wed Jun 29 23:38:25 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Message-ID: MSNBC reported "the committee examined doses of radiation of up to 100 millsieverts..." implying radiation workers, not the public or public exposure limits....so once again we extrapolate into zaniness. Rick Whitman ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Author: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl Date: 6/29/2005 2:13 PM Where is this report published and what studies did they review to come up with this conclusion? -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Sandy Perle Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:43 AM To: radsafe; powernet@hps1.org Subject: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Comments? Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless, a panel of prominent scientists concluded Wednesday. The finding by the National Academy of Sciences panel is viewed as critical because it is likely to significantly influence what radiation levels government agencies will allow at abandoned nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons production facilities and elsewhere. The nuclear industry,, as well as some independent scientists, have argued that there is a threshold of very low level radiation where exposure is not harmful, or possibly even beneficial. They said current risk modeling may exaggerate the health impact. The panel, after five years of study, rejected that claim. "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said Richard R. Monson, the panel chairman and a professor of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health. The committee gave support to the so-called "linear, no threshold" model that is currently the generally acceptable approach to radiation risk assessment. This approach assumes that the health risks from radiation exposure declines as the dose levels decline, but that each unit of radiation - no matter how small - still is assumed to cause cancer. The panel, formally known as the Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiaton, or BEIR, generally supported previous cancer risk estimates - the last one by an earlier BEIR group in 1990. Contrary to assertions that risks from exposure from low-level radiation may have been overstated, the panel said "the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these (earlier) estimates." The committee examined doses of radiation of up to 100 millisievert, a measurement of accumulated radiation to an individual over a year. By comparison, a single chest X-ray accounts for 0.1 millisievert and average background radiation 3 millisievert. The committee estmated that 1 out of 100 people would likely develop solid cancer or leukemia from an exposure of 100 millisievert of radiation over a lifetime. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ . From richard.t.whitman at dhs.gov Wed Jun 29 23:48:13 2005 From: richard.t.whitman at dhs.gov (Whitman, Richard T) Date: Wed Jun 29 23:39:21 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Message-ID: MSNBC reported "the committee examined doses of radiation of up to 100 millsieverts..." implying radiation workers, not the public or public exposure limits....so once again we extrapolate into zaniness. Rick Whitman ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Author: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl Date: 6/29/2005 2:13 PM Where is this report published and what studies did they review to come up with this conclusion? -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Sandy Perle Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:43 AM To: radsafe; powernet@hps1.org Subject: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Comments? Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless, a panel of prominent scientists concluded Wednesday. The finding by the National Academy of Sciences panel is viewed as critical because it is likely to significantly influence what radiation levels government agencies will allow at abandoned nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons production facilities and elsewhere. The nuclear industry,, as well as some independent scientists, have argued that there is a threshold of very low level radiation where exposure is not harmful, or possibly even beneficial. They said current risk modeling may exaggerate the health impact. The panel, after five years of study, rejected that claim. "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said Richard R. Monson, the panel chairman and a professor of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health. The committee gave support to the so-called "linear, no threshold" model that is currently the generally acceptable approach to radiation risk assessment. This approach assumes that the health risks from radiation exposure declines as the dose levels decline, but that each unit of radiation - no matter how small - still is assumed to cause cancer. The panel, formally known as the Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiaton, or BEIR, generally supported previous cancer risk estimates - the last one by an earlier BEIR group in 1990. Contrary to assertions that risks from exposure from low-level radiation may have been overstated, the panel said "the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these (earlier) estimates." The committee examined doses of radiation of up to 100 millisievert, a measurement of accumulated radiation to an individual over a year. By comparison, a single chest X-ray accounts for 0.1 millisievert and average background radiation 3 millisievert. The committee estmated that 1 out of 100 people would likely develop solid cancer or leukemia from an exposure of 100 millisievert of radiation over a lifetime. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ . From jimm at WPI.EDU Thu Jun 30 01:37:37 2005 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Thu Jun 30 01:40:37 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII Phase 2 Report * "Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation May Cause Harm" Message-ID: Jim, All, Do you want the full report for a substantial review? (733 pages, 4.7 MB PDF) Regards, Jim Muckerheide -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl on behalf of Jim Hardeman Sent: Wed 6/29/2005 4:28 PM To: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII Phase 2 Report * "Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation May Cause Harm" Colleagues * I thought y'all might be interested in this. The National Research Council released the BEIR VII Phase 2 report today ... the link is: URL = http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/ ... and it's the top news article. Press release follows. Jim Hardeman Jim_Hardeman@dnr.state.ga.us =================== Date: June 29, 2005 Contacts: Vanee Vines, Senior Media Relations Officer Megan Petty, Media Relations Assistant Office of News and Public Information 202-334-2138; e-mail FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation May Cause Harm WASHINGTON -- A preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even low doses of ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, are likely to pose some risk of adverse health effects, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council. The report's focus is low-dose, low-LET -- "linear energy transfer" -- ionizing radiation that is energetic enough to break biomolecular bonds. In living organisms, such radiation can cause DNA damage that eventually leads to cancers. However, more research is needed to determine whether low doses of radiation may also cause other health problems, such as heart disease and stroke, which are now seen with high doses of low-LET radiation. The study committee defined low doses as those ranging from nearly zero to about 100 millisievert (mSv) -- units that measure radiation energy deposited in living tissue. The radiation dose from a chest X-ray is about 0.1 mSv. In the United States, people are exposed on average to about 3 mSv of natural "background" radiation annually. The committee's report develops the most up-to-date and comprehensive risk estimates for cancer and other health effects from exposure to low-level ionizing radiation. In general, the report supports previously reported risk estimates for solid cancer and leukemia, but the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these estimates. Specifically, the committee's thorough review of available biological and biophysical data supports a "linear, no-threshold" (LNT) risk model, which says that the smallest dose of low-level ionizing radiation has the potential to cause an increase in health risks to humans. In the past, some researchers have argued that the LNT model exaggerates adverse health effects, while others have said that it underestimates the harm. The preponderance of evidence supports the LNT model, this new report says. "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said committee chair Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. "The health risks * particularly the development of solid cancers in organs * rise proportionally with exposure. At low doses of radiation, the risk of inducing solid cancers is very small. As the overall lifetime exposure increases, so does the risk." The report is the seventh in a series on the biological effects of ionizing radiation. Assessing Health Risks The committee's risk models for exposure to low-level ionizing radiation were based on a sex and age distribution similar to that of the entire U.S. population, and refer to the risk that an individual would face over his or her life span. These models predict that about one out of 100 people would likely develop solid cancer or leukemia from an exposure of 0.1 Sv (100 mSv). About 42 additional people in the same group would be expected to develop solid cancer or leukemia from other causes. Roughly half of these cancers would result in death. These particular estimates are uncertain, however, because of limitations in the data used to develop risk models. Survivors of atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, were the primary sources of data for estimating risks of most solid cancers and leukemia from exposure to ionizing radiation. The committee's review included an examination of updated cancer-incidence data from tumor registries of the survivors, and of research data on solid cancer deaths -- which is now more abundant because the number of deaths available for analysis has nearly doubled since the Research Council published its previous report on this topic in 1990. The committee combined this information with data on people who had been medically exposed to radiation to estimate risks of breast cancer in women and thyroid cancer. Data from additional medical studies and from studies of people exposed to radiation through their occupations also were evaluated and found to be compatible with the committee's statistical models. Follow-up studies should continue for the indefinite future, the report says. Adverse hereditary health effects that could be attributed to radiation have not been found in studies of children whose parents were exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs. However, studies of mice and other organisms have produced extensive data showing that radiation-induced cell mutations in sperm and eggs can be passed on to offspring, the report says. There is no reason to believe that such mutations could not also be passed on to human offspring. The failure to observe such effects in Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably reflects an insufficiently large survivor population. Follow-up studies of people who receive computed tomography (CT) scans, especially children, should be conducted, the report adds. Also needed are studies of infants who are exposed to diagnostic radiation because catheters have been placed in their hearts, as well as infants who receive multiple X-rays to monitor pulmonary development. CT scans, often referred to as whole body scans, result in higher doses of radiation than typically experienced with conventional X-rays. Sources of Ionizing Radiation People are exposed to natural background ionizing radiation from the universe, the ground, and basic activities such as eating, drinking, and breathing. These sources account for about 82 percent of human exposure. Nationwide, man-made radiation comprises 18 percent of human exposure. In this overall category, medical X-rays and nuclear medicine account for about 79 percent, the report says. Elements in consumer products -- such as tobacco, tap water, and building materials -- account for another 16 percent. Occupational exposure, fallout, and the use of nuclear fuel constitute roughly 5 percent of the man-made component nationwide. Factors that could increase exposure include greater use of radiation for medical purposes, working around radioactive materials, and smoking tobacco. Living at low altitudes, where there is less cosmic radiation, and living and working on the upper floors of buildings, where there is less radon gas -- a primary source of natural ionizing radiation -- are factors that could decrease exposure. The report was sponsored by the U.S. departments of Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows. Copies of Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII - Phase 2) will be available this summer from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above). [ This news release and report are available at http://national-academies.org ] NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Division on Earth and Life Studies Board on Radiation Effects Research Committee to Assess Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation Richard R. Monson, M.D., Sc.D. (chair) Associate Dean for Professional Education, and Professor of Epidemiology School of Public Health Harvard University Boston James E. Cleaver, Ph.D.(1) (vice chair) Professor of Dermatology Cancer Center and Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry University of California San Francisco Herbert L. Abrams, M.D. (2) Professor Emeritus of Radiology Stanford University Medical School, and Member in Residence Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation Stanford, Calif. Eula Bingham, Ph.D. (2) Professor of Environmental Health University of Cincinnati Cincinnati Patricia A. Buffler, Ph.D. (2) Kenneth and Marjorie Kaiser Chair of Cancer Epidemiology, and Professor of Epidemiology School of Public Health University of California Berkeley Elisabeth Cardis, Ph.D. Chief, Unit of Radiation and Cancer International Agency for Research on Cancer Lyon, France Roger Cox, Ph.D. Director National Radiological Protection Board Chilton, United Kingdom Scott Davis, Ph.D. Professor and Chair Department of Epidemiology School of Public Health and Community Medicine University of Washington, and Full Member Program in Epidemiology Division of Public Health Sciences Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center Seattle William C. Dewey, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Radiation Oncology University of California San Francisco Ethel S. Gilbert, Ph.D. Biostatistician Radiation Epidemiology Branch National Cancer Institute Bethesda, Md. Albrecht Kellerer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus University of Munich Munich, Germany Daniel Krewski, Ph.D., M.H.A. Director McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, and Professor of Medicine and of Epidemiology and Community Medicine University of Ottawa Ontario, Canada Tomas Lindahl, M.D. Director Clare Hall Laboratories Cancer Research U.K. London Katherine E. Rowan, Ph.D. Professor and Associate Chair Department of Communication George Mason University Fairfax, Va. K. Sankaranarayanan, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Department of Toxicogenetics Leiden University Medical Centre Leiden, Netherlands Daniel W. Schafer, Ph.D. Professor Department of Statistics Oregon State University Corvallis Robert L. Ullrich, Ph.D. Barbara Cox Anthony University Chair in Oncology Departments of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences and of Clinical Sciences Colorado State University Fort Collins RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF Rick Jostes, Ph.D. Study Director Evan B. Douple, Ph.D. Director Board on Radiation Effects Research (1) Member, National Academy of Sciences (2) Member, Institute of Medicine _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From JPreisig at aol.com Thu Jun 30 02:10:19 2005 From: JPreisig at aol.com (JPreisig@aol.com) Date: Thu Jun 30 02:10:36 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tokomak, Fusion, etc. Message-ID: <211.3bb6847.2ff4926b@aol.com> Hmmmmmm, This is from: jpreisig@aol.com . Howdy Radsafers, As usual, Franz is the demanding one and wants to hear about tokomaks, fusion and the like. OK, I will try to comply briefly. A fairly recent book with fusion discussions is Emilio Segre's book on Nuclear and Particle Physics. Tokomaks are ring-like structures (a torous or donut shape) which use magnetic fields to contain the eventual hot plasma gas. The NSTX at Princeton (PPPL) is like a tokomak whose outside radius has been shrunk so that the donut shape approaches a more spherical torous shape. The basic fusion reactions are deuterium on deuterium and/or deuterium on tritium. The second reaction produces 15 MeV neutrons. These 15 MeV neutrons can interact with the fusion reactor assembly (metals and other materials) and neutron activate such materials. Such neutron activation is described in the book Accelerator Health Physics by Patterson and Thomas and in a more dedicated book on activation, which is probably listed in Patterson & Thomas' references. The energies to make the fusion reactions go is typically 10 to 50 keV. So, if you put in 10 to 50 keV and can get 15 MeV out (via the neutrons), then you gain energy by making fusion reactions happen. You have to contain the fusion plasma with magnetic fields or else the plasma will interact with the fusion reactor (material) walls and destroy the fusion reactor structure. The TFTR at PPPL was a tokomak of sorts, I believe. You can breed tritium by allowing the fusion neutrons to interact with a blanket of Lithium, as alluded to by other persons posting to radsafe. The fusion reaction must achieve a sufficient temperature for the reaction to go, and must have a density of D and T ions sufficient to have a significant number of fusion reactions occur. Also one wants to keep the plasma "together" for a useful amount of time to get net energy out. If the D and T particles are indeed ions, then these ions repell each other electromagnetically. Clearly D,T fusion occurs all the time in neutron generators. But the reaction is not occuring on a large (spatial) scale. Tokomaks work to confine plasmas because plasmas leaking from one section of the tokomak leak only into other regions of the tokomak. The fusion reaction is always contained by magnetic fields. On and On, Blah, Blah, Blah. The deutrium for the fusions was supposed to come from ocean water. As stated earlier, tritium can be bred in a fusion reactor. Franz, if you have more specific questions, just ask them and I will try to answer. If the question is beyond me, I will just say so. Regards, Joseph R. (Joe) Preisig, Ph.D. From Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com Thu Jun 30 02:28:13 2005 From: Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com (Flanigan, Floyd) Date: Thu Jun 30 02:28:25 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer Message-ID: <9B9410BB35BC3443BEA0369E880B0BA501323EF0@piex01.pi.nmcco.net> Well folks ... I guess the jig's up. Everybody in Colorado ... get out. It isn't safe there anymore. Same for you Peru ... Everybody out of the pool. Floyd W.Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl]On Behalf Of alstonchris@netscape.net Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 3:58 PM To: don.mercado@lmco.com; radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer It's BEIR VII; you can get it from the National Academy Press of the National Academy of Sciences. Cheers cja "Mercado, Don" wrote: >Where is this report published and what studies did they review to come >up with this conclusion? > >-----Original Message----- >From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On >Behalf Of Sandy Perle >Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:43 AM >To: radsafe; powernet@hps1.org >Subject: [ RadSafe ] Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer > > >Comments? > >Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer >By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer > >WASHINGTON - The preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even >very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health >problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed >as harmless, a panel of prominent scientists concluded Wednesday. > >The finding by the ?National Academy of Sciences panel is viewed as >critical because it is likely to significantly influence what >radiation levels government agencies will allow at abandoned nuclear >power plants, nuclear weapons production facilities and elsewhere. > >The nuclear industry,, as well as some independent scientists, have >argued that there is a threshold of very low level radiation where >exposure is not harmful, or possibly even beneficial. They said >current risk modeling may exaggerate the health impact. > >The panel, after five years of study, rejected that claim. > >"The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of >exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be >demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said Richard R. Monson, >the panel chairman and a professor of epidemiology at Harvard's >School of Public Health. > >The committee gave support to the so-called "linear, no threshold" >model that is currently the generally acceptable approach to >radiation risk assessment. This approach assumes that the health >risks from radiation exposure declines as the dose levels decline, >but that each unit of radiation - no matter how small - still is >assumed to cause cancer. > >The panel, formally known as the Committee on Biological Effects of >Ionizing Radiaton, or BEIR, generally supported previous cancer risk >estimates - the last one by an earlier BEIR group in 1990. > >Contrary to assertions that risks from exposure from low-level >radiation may have been overstated, the panel said "the availability >of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these >(earlier) estimates." > >The committee examined doses of radiation of up to 100 millisievert, >a measurement of accumulated radiation to an individual over a year. >By comparison, a single chest X-ray accounts for 0.1 millisievert and >average background radiation 3 millisievert. > >The committee estmated that 1 out of 100 people would likely develop >solid cancer or leukemia from an exposure of 100 millisievert of >radiation over a lifetime. > >------------------------------------- >Sandy Perle >Senior Vice President, Technical Operations >Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. >2652 McGaw Avenue >Irvine, CA 92614 > >Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 ?Extension 2306 >Fax:(949) 296-1902 > >E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com >E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net > >Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ >Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ > > >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list >radsafe@radlab.nl > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood >the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: >http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings >visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $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 radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com Thu Jun 30 02:30:06 2005 From: Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com (Flanigan, Floyd) Date: Thu Jun 30 02:30:21 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] LNT in the news Message-ID: <9B9410BB35BC3443BEA0369E880B0BA501323EF1@piex01.pi.nmcco.net> So ... When does the decommissioning of the Rocky Mountains begin? And where the heck are we gonna bury all of that granite? Floyd W.Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Kolb, William (WKOLB) Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 4:09 PM To: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] LNT in the news Low radiation levels pose cancer risk Scientists say no threshold below which exposure is harmless The Associated Press Updated: 4:42 p.m. ET June 29, 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8389834/ Bill Wkolb ARINC Inc. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From lists at richardhess.com Thu Jun 30 02:51:08 2005 From: lists at richardhess.com (Richard L. Hess) Date: Thu Jun 30 02:51:39 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' cancer risk rise In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20050629133331.0330fcb8@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> References: <8C7AD67141A06D499823B280003E6C02EDF1D9@svits11.main.ad.rit.edu> <6.0.1.1.2.20050629133331.0330fcb8@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050629204840.04ac0a70@127.0.0.1> At 05:11 PM 6/29/2005, Otto G. Raabe wrote: >When lung cancer is separated from the other solid cancers, there is >no significant increase in cancer rate for all the other types of >cancers combined. [snip] The Canadian cohort was the only cohort >reported that showed a significantly increased cancer risk. If the >Canadian data are omitted, the data from the other 14 countries did >not demonstrate a significant increase in cancer rates as a function >of radiation dose. As someone who has lived intermittently in Canada (and is doing so now), historically, Canadians had a high percentage of smokers, and the available cigarettes were often "stronger" than the U.S. brands. Also, Canada was one of the world's major producers of asbestos and that, too, may have an effect as it was widely used being a "domestic" material. Regards, Richard Richard L. Hess email: richard@richardhess.com Vignettes Media web: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/ Aurora, Ontario, Canada (905) 713 6733 1-877-TAPE-FIX Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm From Leif.Dahlskog at health.wa.gov.au Thu Jun 30 03:43:35 2005 From: Leif.Dahlskog at health.wa.gov.au (Dahlskog, Leif) Date: Thu Jun 30 03:44:05 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Med Rad Tech Oversight and CA proposed rule Message-ID: <1F51E7812A0FC84F8B0A009BCC250DAC05496673@nt208mxsep.corporate.hdwa.health.wa.gov.au> Paul I read the digest your link refers to. I didn't see where it mentioned anything to do with tracking patient medical exposure. Isn't it about introducing a QA program for what is essentially a compliance testing of diagnostic x-ray equipment? Leif Dahlskog Senior Health Physicist Radiation Health Branch Department of Health, Western Australia Ph (+61 8) 9346 2260 Fax (+61 8) 9381 1423 The contents of this e-mail transmission are intended solely for the named recipient(s), may be confidential, and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure in the public interest. The use, reproduction, disclosure or distribution of the contents of this e-mail transmission by any person other than the named recipient(s) is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient please notify the sender immediately. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Paul Lavely Sent: Thursday, 30 June 2005 4:03 AM To: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Med Rad Tech Oversight and CA proposed rule > >By the way, a California legislator is proposing a law that would >require tracking of patient medical exposures and that MDs consider the >history in making a decision as to tests. > >Paul A couple of folks asked me for more details. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0901-0950/ab_929_bill_20050628 _amended_sen.html BILL NUMBER: AB 929 From Gv1 at aol.com Thu Jun 30 04:01:03 2005 From: Gv1 at aol.com (Gv1@aol.com) Date: Thu Jun 30 04:01:23 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Reprocessing Message-ID: <24.73e95ddc.2ff4ac5f@aol.com> I believe if reprocessing comes around in the next 10 years it will be to support the desire to burn up weapons material from the former USSR as MOX fuel. I believe a commercial plant in the Duke energy system is planning for a MOX reload within the next couple of years? Glen Vickers From jimm at WPI.EDU Thu Jun 30 03:59:41 2005 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Thu Jun 30 04:06:35 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: "Science" reporting on the BEIR VII report release Message-ID: Well said Mike. However, he should add to "politics and publicity" the more direct motivation - big payoffs in cash and career! Regards, Jim -----Original Message----- From: Mike Fox [mailto:foxm011@hawaii.rr.com] Sent: Wed 6/29/2005 9:20 PM To: Muckerheide, James; rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU; mbrexchange@list.ans.org Subject: Re: "Science" reporting on the BEIR VII report release All: With respect to this NAS fiasco, Michael Crichton said in a recent speech: "But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free. " Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Muckerheide, James" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 4:44 PM Subject: "Science" reporting on the BEIR VII report release > Friends, > > This is a brief news item in "Science" on the BEIR VII report release. > > Regards, Jim Muckerheide > ========================== > > Too Hot to Handle > > A National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report released today finds that the > risks of low-dose radiation rise with the dose, and there is no safe level > of > radiation. That conclusion has grown stronger over the past 15 years, says > the NAS committee, dismissing the hypothesis that tiny amounts of > radiation > are harmless or beneficial. > > [PHOTO: Worker in full body cover - CAPTION: Risky. Even those who don't > work > at nuclear power plants may be exposed to harmful levels of radiation in > their daily lives. > CREDIT: Brand X pictures/Getty Images > > The Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation--VII (BEIR-VII) panel > examined > the risks of exposure to both natural and man-made radiation at or below > 0.1 > Sieverts (Sv), which is roughly 40 times the amount the average person is > exposed to each year. For typical Americans, 82% of radiation exposure > stems > from natural sources such as radon gas seeping from the earth; the rest > comes > mostly from medical procedures like x-rays. > > In its last report on the topic, in 1990, a BEIR panel calculated risks by > plotting cancer deaths and doses for survivors of the two atomic bombs > dropped on Japan in World War II. Risks appeared to increase with the > dose. > Based on evidence that even a single particle of radiation can damage a > cell's DNA, the panel then extrapolated this relationship to very low > doses > to produce what is known as the linear no-threshold model (LNT). Some > scientists have challenged the LNT model, however, noting that other cell > and > animal studies suggest that a little radiation is harmless and could even > stimulate DNA repair enzymes and other processes that protect against > later > insults, an idea known as "hormesis." > > But the BEIR-VII report finds that the LNT model still holds. The latest > cancer data on the bomb survivors, as well as fresh studies on nuclear > workers and people exposed to medical radiation, all support the LNT > relationship: Even a single 0.1 Sv dose would cause cancer in 1 of 100 > people. Such risks should be taken into account, the report cautions, when > people consider full-body computed tomography (CT) scans to find signs of > disease, a recent fad at shopping malls that delivers a radiation dose of > 0.012 Sv. > > As for the hormesis theory, the panel found it is "not supported" by the > data, although the panel says the hypothesis should be studied further. > And > the panel's chair, Harvard epidemiologist Richard Monson, acknowledges > that > the long-running debate over the LNT model won't end with this report. > "Some > minds will be changed; others will not," he says. > > --JOCELYN KAISER > > > From Gv1 at aol.com Thu Jun 30 04:15:09 2005 From: Gv1 at aol.com (Gv1@aol.com) Date: Thu Jun 30 04:15:25 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical Radiological Technician Oversight Message-ID: <76.56406f44.2ff4afad@aol.com> I would imagine the human error prevention barriers are few, since the perceived risk from being off on a diagostic x-ray is considered to be 0 in the medical field. Event reports show the medical community believes being off by a rem or two or even 10's of rem are considered to represent "minimal" risk, therefore I doubt many resources would be set aside for the no reduction in risk from diagnostic x-rays. Here's some sad humor. My wife was recently in San Antonio with other family members while I was at the nuclear power plant doing whatever it is that I'm supposed to do. The emergency room staff thought she might have pneumonia, so they wanted a chest x-ray. They perform a CT scan instead of a chest x-ray. I waiting for the insurance company to balk for excessive charges. I don't think I need to say much my thoughts about unnecessary excess exposure... Glen From Gv1 at aol.com Thu Jun 30 04:39:21 2005 From: Gv1 at aol.com (Gv1@aol.com) Date: Thu Jun 30 04:39:57 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access Message-ID: You can find the best address to steal a high activity source to make a dirty bomb by searching through licenses... Risk/benefit assessment... Glen From jimm at WPI.EDU Thu Jun 30 07:22:50 2005 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Thu Jun 30 07:24:59 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] LNT in the news Message-ID: Right! Floyd :-) But where was everybody when we were challenging EPA's 2000 rule on 4 mrem/year for radium-in-water and Yucca Mt release in water (with background from 100 to >1000 mrem/year, and local conditions in populated areas to more than 10,000 mrem/year) which are now causing severe pain to nuclear power and small communities on municipal wells. But are they causing "pain" to the financial interests? The people with the real interest see these as money-makers from gouging the taxpayers and ratepayers, to the PROFIT of the "nuclear industry!" Regards, Jim Muckerheide -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl on behalf of Flanigan, Floyd Sent: Wed 6/29/2005 8:30 PM To: Kolb, William (WKOLB); radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] LNT in the news So ... When does the decommissioning of the Rocky Mountains begin? And where the heck are we gonna bury all of that granite? Floyd W.Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Kolb, William (WKOLB) Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 4:09 PM To: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] LNT in the news Low radiation levels pose cancer risk Scientists say no threshold below which exposure is harmless The Associated Press Updated: 4:42 p.m. ET June 29, 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8389834/ Bill Wkolb ARINC Inc. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From Dave.Biela at wvnsco.com Thu Jun 30 12:14:57 2005 From: Dave.Biela at wvnsco.com (Dave Biela) Date: Thu Jun 30 12:15:39 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] CBS News Report - NO safe radiation Message-ID: Study: No Radiation Level Safe WASHINGTON, June 29, 2005 The preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless, a panel of prominent scientists concluded Wednesday. The finding by the National Academy of Sciences panel is viewed as critical because it is likely to significantly influence what radiation levels government agencies will allow at abandoned nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons production facilities and elsewhere. The nuclear industry, as well as some independent scientists, have argued that there is a threshold of very low level radiation where exposure is not harmful, or possibly even beneficial. They said current risk modeling may exaggerate the health impact. The panel, after five years of study, rejected that claim. "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said Richard R. Monson, the panel chairman and a professor of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health. The committee gave support to the so-called "linear, no threshold" model that is currently the generally acceptable approach to radiation risk assessment. This approach assumes that the health risks from radiation exposure declines as the dose levels decline, but that each unit of radiation ? no matter how small ? still is assumed to cause cancer. The panel, formally known as the Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiaton, or BEIR, generally supported previous cancer risk estimates ? the last one by an earlier BEIR group in 1990. Contrary to assertions that risks from exposure from low-level radiation may have been overstated, the panel said "the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these (earlier) estimates." The committee examined doses of radiation of up to 100 millisievert, a measurement of accumulated radiation to an individual over a year. By comparison, a single chest X-ray accounts for 0.1 millisievert and average background radiation 3 millisievert. The committee estimated that 1 out of 100 people would likely develop solid cancer or leukemia from an exposure of 100 millisievert of radiation over a lifetime. ?MMV, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. From maurysis at ev1.net Thu Jun 30 13:23:06 2005 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Thu Jun 30 13:23:24 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] LNT in the news In-Reply-To: <9B9410BB35BC3443BEA0369E880B0BA501323EF1@piex01.pi.nmcco.net> References: <9B9410BB35BC3443BEA0369E880B0BA501323EF1@piex01.pi.nmcco.net> Message-ID: <42C3D61A.1080305@ev1.net> Deep sea disposal. And prepare thyselves for the tsunami of biblical proportions -- and watch NAS try to cope with THAT one.... Cheers, Maury&Dog (maurysis@ev1.net) _______ Visit Indiana: 2 Billion Years Tidal Wave Free! ======================== Flanigan, Floyd wrote: >So ... When does the decommissioning of the Rocky Mountains begin? And where the heck are we gonna bury all of that granite? > >Floyd W.Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P. > >-----Original Message----- >From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl]On >Behalf Of Kolb, William (WKOLB) >Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 4:09 PM >To: radsafe@radlab.nl >Subject: [ RadSafe ] LNT in the news > > >Low radiation levels pose cancer risk Scientists say no threshold below >which exposure is harmless > >The Associated Press Updated: 4:42 p.m. ET June 29, 2005 > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8389834/ > > >Bill >Wkolb >ARINC Inc. > > > > From davidhelton1 at bellsouth.net Thu Jun 30 13:29:27 2005 From: davidhelton1 at bellsouth.net (davidhelton1@bellsouth.net) Date: Thu Jun 30 13:29:56 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' cancer risk rise Message-ID: <20050630112927.DTIC11957.ibm56aec.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net> What did they use as a control group? I could also say that water causes cancer and no one could disprove because water is essential to life and there could be no control group. David K. Helton > > From: "Fred Dawson" > Date: 2005/06/29 Wed PM 12:11:56 EDT > To: > Subject: [ RadSafe ] BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' cancer risk rise > > BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' cancer risk rise > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4629461.stm > > also see > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1516929,00.html > > > Exposure to a low level of radiation is linked to a small increase in a > person's cancer risk, a study of nuclear power station workers found. > An international team studied over 407,000 workers in 15 countries, who > were followed up for around 13 years. > > The British Medical Journal study estimates up to 2% of cancer deaths > were due to radiation exposure. > > But they said the increased risk did not apply to people living near to > power stations. > > Ionising radiation is a well known cancer-causing agent. > > Current radiation protection recommendations are to limit occupational > doses to 100 millisieverts (mSv) over five years and doses to the public > to 1 mSv per year. > > These guidelines were based mainly on data from survivors of the atomic > bomb in Japan and the extrapolation of risks to the general population > and radiation workers is controversial. > > Researchers studied the thousands of nuclear industry workers in order > to get a better idea of their risk. > > Hiroshima > Most were men and had been employed for at least one year in nuclear > power production facilities, or in related activities such as research, > waste management or fuel and weapons production. > > Ninety per cent of workers were exposed to a cumulative dose of under > 50mSv, and less than 1% over 500mSv. > > Factors such as age, duration of employment, and socioeconomic status > were taken into account when the researchers looked at the workers. > > Just under 200 died from leukaemias, and 6,519 from other cancers. > > The researchers say, that from their evidence, 1 to 2% of deaths from > cancer among workers in this study may be attributable to radiation. > > The risk estimates from the study are consistent with those used for > current radiation protection standards, they say. > > And they add that many of the workers in this study worked in the early > years of the industry when doses tended to be higher than they are > today. > > 'Vigilence' > Dr Colin Muirhead, of the Radiological Protection Division of the Health > Protection Agency, who worked on the study, told the BBC News website: > "This is what we expected to see, because even with a low does of > radiation, there would be a cancer risk. > > He added: "The levels of exposure we saw in this study are much lower > than were seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. > > "In absolute terms, it is a fairly small increase in risk." > > He said workers in the industry should be reassured by the study's > findings. > > "At an individual level it will make a very small difference." > > And he said the results also fitted in with studies which had found no > link between cancer risk and living near a nuclear power station. > > "It's certain that for the population, exposure would be much lower than > what we're talking about here. "There is no inconsistency." > > Professor John Toy, Medical Director at Cancer Research UK, said: > "Radiation is a very well known carcinogen. > > "This extremely large study shows an increased risk, albeit small, of > cancer and most types of leukaemia associated with occupational low-dose > radiation exposure." > > He added: "The radiation risk estimates are statistically comparable > with those used for current radiation protection standards. > > "The nuclear industry must remain ever vigilant to ensure these > standards are not breached and constantly endeavour to reduce the > exposure of its workers to radiation." " > > Fred Dawson > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From kaleissa at kacst.edu.sa Thu Jun 30 13:51:37 2005 From: kaleissa at kacst.edu.sa (KHALID ALEISSA) Date: Thu Jun 30 13:52:03 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Whole-body counting and actinides Message-ID: <015201c57d6a$132f00a0$fa01810a@D7G9SB0J> I have interest in knowing a professional laboratory who could do whole-body counting for actinides (detail address and capabilities). Furthermore, what would be the most sensitive detection whole-body in detecting alpha emitting radionuclide in human lung or hot spots in the body. Best regards Khalid Aleissa From robert.atkinson at genetix.com Thu Jun 30 14:00:40 2005 From: robert.atkinson at genetix.com (Robert Atkinson) Date: Thu Jun 30 14:01:02 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HEPA filters for radioisotope fume hoods Message-ID: Hi Peter, Your question is a little too general to give a definitive answer. The first question is why is the fume hood being used? Is it to protect against the spread of radioactive contamination or to protect against toxic contamination, or both? A HEPA filter will also trap many aerosolised contaminants. If a hood is designed for a specific purpose then the choice can be made whether a HEPA filter is appropriate or not. A general purpose fume hood may have one fitted to cope with a range of operations that may be carried out in the hood. Another possibility is that the equipment is designed primarily (or as a secondary function) not as protection from the material being handled, but to protect it from contamination. This is very common were radio-isotopes (e.g. P32) are being used as biological markers. The "fume hood" is actually a containment to prevent contamination of the target organism by bacteria etc. as well as protecting the user from the organism. It is impossible to make an accurate and safe assessment of any safety system without full and complete knowledge of its intended use(s) and design principles. A feature that seems totally un-necessary may be there to cater for a particular application or be a fail-safe back-up. Regards, Robert Atkinson. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Peter.Vernig@med.va.gov Sent: 29 June 2005 21:17 To: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] HEPA filters for radioisotope fume hoods Somebody not too long ago, say 1 to 3 years informed me why so many places have HEPA filtration of fume hoods where radioisotopes are used. In virtually all research situations dispersible powered radioactive material is not used so HEPAs make no sense. I have seen them at NASA's Ames Research Center and UC Berkeley both institutions should know better. My recollection is that it was a building code or "best practice" that some ill advised agency put into place. If the person that sent me the information or anybody else knows about it I would greatly appreciate getting it retransmitted to me. I have just discovered such an arrangement and in order to kill it, it would be very helpful to know the source of the practice. Any opinions in this e-mail are solely those of the author, and are not represented as those of the VA Eastern Colorado HCS, the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, or the US Government. Peter G. Vernig, Radiation Safety Officer, MS-115, VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, 1055 Clermont St. Denver, CO 80220, peter.vernig@med.va.gov, Phone= 303.399.8020 x2447; Fax = 303.393.5026, alternate fax, 303.393.5248 "...whatever is true, whatever is noble, 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 radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not necessarily Genetix Ltd (Genetix) or any company associated with it. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify Genetix by telephone on +44 (0)1425 624600. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. This mail and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving the Genetix network. Genetix will not be liable for direct, special, indirect or consequential damages as a result of any virus being passed on, or arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party. From EBARATTA at ORA.FDA.GOV Thu Jun 30 14:30:20 2005 From: EBARATTA at ORA.FDA.GOV (Baratta, Edmond J) Date: Thu Jun 30 14:31:24 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] CBS News Report - NO safe radiation Message-ID: <2DCD5C7845865A4DA541502677F6CD569BD8E4@orsnewea002.fda.gov> Colleagues: We must abandon the planet!! However, wherever we go and when we travel we will be bombarded by this radioactivity. What does this esteemed Professor and the Panel suggests we do?? Edmond J. Baratta Radiation Safety Officer Tel. No. 781-729-5700, ext 728 FAX: 781-729-3593 These are my thoughts and not necessarily those of my Agency. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dave Biela Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 6:15 AM To: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] CBS News Report - NO safe radiation Study: No Radiation Level Safe WASHINGTON, June 29, 2005 The preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless, a panel of prominent scientists concluded Wednesday. The finding by the National Academy of Sciences panel is viewed as critical because it is likely to significantly influence what radiation levels government agencies will allow at abandoned nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons production facilities and elsewhere. The nuclear industry, as well as some independent scientists, have argued that there is a threshold of very low level radiation where exposure is not harmful, or possibly even beneficial. They said current risk modeling may exaggerate the health impact. The panel, after five years of study, rejected that claim. "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said Richard R. Monson, the panel chairman and a professor of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health. The committee gave support to the so-called "linear, no threshold" model that is currently the generally acceptable approach to radiation risk assessment. This approach assumes that the health risks from radiation exposure declines as the dose levels decline, but that each unit of radiation ? no matter how small ? still is assumed to cause cancer. The panel, formally known as the Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiaton, or BEIR, generally supported previous cancer risk estimates ? the last one by an earlier BEIR group in 1990. Contrary to assertions that risks from exposure from low-level radiation may have been overstated, the panel said "the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these (earlier) estimates." The committee examined doses of radiation of up to 100 millisievert, a measurement of accumulated radiation to an individual over a year. By comparison, a single chest X-ray accounts for 0.1 millisievert and average background radiation 3 millisievert. The committee estimated that 1 out of 100 people would likely develop solid cancer or leukemia from an exposure of 100 millisievert of radiation over a lifetime. ?MMV, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From EBARATTA at ORA.FDA.GOV Thu Jun 30 14:41:19 2005 From: EBARATTA at ORA.FDA.GOV (Baratta, Edmond J) Date: Thu Jun 30 14:41:36 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] CBS News Report - NO safe radiation Message-ID: <2DCD5C7845865A4DA541502677F6CD569BD8E5@orsnewea002.fda.gov> Colleagues: We must abandon the planet!! However, wherever we go and when we travel we will be bombarded by this radioactivity. What does this esteemed Professor and the Panel suggests we do?? What about the potassium-40 in our bodies? How can we cleanse it from our bodies? Edmond J. Baratta Radiation Safety Officer Tel. No. 781-729-5700, ext 728 FAX: 781-729-3593 These are my thoughts and not necessarily those of my Agency. Edmond J. Baratta International Expert Radioactivity/ Radiation Safety Officer Tel. No. 781-729-5700, ext 728 FAX: 781-729-3593 -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dave Biela Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 6:15 AM To: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] CBS News Report - NO safe radiation Study: No Radiation Level Safe WASHINGTON, June 29, 2005 The preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless, a panel of prominent scientists concluded Wednesday. The finding by the National Academy of Sciences panel is viewed as critical because it is likely to significantly influence what radiation levels government agencies will allow at abandoned nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons production facilities and elsewhere. The nuclear industry, as well as some independent scientists, have argued that there is a threshold of very low level radiation where exposure is not harmful, or possibly even beneficial. They said current risk modeling may exaggerate the health impact. The panel, after five years of study, rejected that claim. "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said Richard R. Monson, the panel chairman and a professor of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health. The committee gave support to the so-called "linear, no threshold" model that is currently the generally acceptable approach to radiation risk assessment. This approach assumes that the health risks from radiation exposure declines as the dose levels decline, but that each unit of radiation ? no matter how small ? still is assumed to cause cancer. The panel, formally known as the Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiaton, or BEIR, generally supported previous cancer risk estimates ? the last one by an earlier BEIR group in 1990. Contrary to assertions that risks from exposure from low-level radiation may have been overstated, the panel said "the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these (earlier) estimates." The committee examined doses of radiation of up to 100 millisievert, a measurement of accumulated radiation to an individual over a year. By comparison, a single chest X-ray accounts for 0.1 millisievert and average background radiation 3 millisievert. The committee estimated that 1 out of 100 people would likely develop solid cancer or leukemia from an exposure of 100 millisievert of radiation over a lifetime. ?MMV, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From ncohen12 at comcast.net Thu Jun 30 15:07:32 2005 From: ncohen12 at comcast.net (Norm Cohen) Date: Thu Jun 30 15:12:55 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Study- Workers in Nuke Plants have higher cancer risk Message-ID: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Guardian (UK), Jun. 29, 2005 WORKERS IN N-PLANTS 'RISK CANCER' By Sarah Boseley The biggest and most comprehensive study ever among nuclear power workers has established that the low doses of radiation they receive can increase their cancer risk. The study of 400,000 workers in 15 countries including the UK, carried out by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organisation, found that 1-2% of the cancer deaths among those who took part may have been caused by radiation exposure. The findings will be controversial, because the nuclear industry has never accepted that its workers are at increased risk. The research is overdue. The standards used for assessing acceptable levels of radiation exposure are currently based on studies of the survivors of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in August 1945. This told scientists much about sudden exposure to high levels of radiation, but it did not give a definitive picture of the effects of low-level long-term exposure. "There has been a controversy for decades about the use of data on A- bomb survivors for setting standards for the protection of the general public and radiation workers," said Elisabeth Cardis of the IARC radiation group. "There was therefore a need for a direct assessment of the carcinogenic effects of low-dose exposures, to evaluate the adequacy of these standards." The IARC scientists looked back at the exposure levels over one year of 400,000 workers, 90% of them men. The workers had all worn radiation dosimeters which registered their exposure. Some worked in nuclear power plants, some in nuclear research or waste management and others in the production of nuclear fuel, isotopes or weapons. Those who might have had substantial neutron or plutonium exposure were excluded, because these have not been adequately measured in the past, said the IARC. Of the 400,000, there had been 196 deaths from leukaemia (other than chronic lymphocytic leukaemia) and 6,519 deaths from other cancers. The risk of cancers in these groups forms the basis for radiological protection standards. The IARC said: "Many of the subjects in this study worked in the early years of the industry when doses tended to be higher than they are today, however. Only a small proportion of cancer deaths would therefore be expected to occur from low-dose chronic exposures to X- and gamma-radiation among current nuclear workers and in the general population." The extra risk may be small, but the scientists say that although it may be made worse by smoking, cigarettes would not account for all of it. "These results provide the most precise and comprehensive direct estimates of cancer risk after protracted exposure to low doses of ionising radiation," said Peter Boyle, director of the IARC. "They strengthen the scientific basis of radiation protection standards for environmental, occupational, and medical diagnostic exposures." Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 Return to Table of Contents -- Coalition for Peace and Justice UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982 ncohen12@comcast.net; http://www.unplugsalem.org http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org "A time comes when silence is betrayal. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought, within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world." - Martin Luther King Jr. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.7/34 - Release Date: 6/29/05 From WKOLB at arinc.com Thu Jun 30 15:15:00 2005 From: WKOLB at arinc.com (Kolb, William (WKOLB)) Date: Thu Jun 30 15:15:25 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' cancer risk rise Message-ID: <9F2ABF88F1AD85459BC13BE147EAFFD40AAB7D50@ANPMB1.arinc.com> We already know we're going to die but can anyone determine if this finding affects longevity? Bill W Kolb ARINC Inc From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jun 30 15:32:07 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu Jun 30 15:32:18 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tokomak, Fusion, etc. In-Reply-To: <211.3bb6847.2ff4926b@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050630133208.7228.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> The book cannot be too recent. Dr. Segre died in 1989. http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1959/segre-bio.html --- JPreisig@aol.com wrote: > Hmmmmmm, > > This is from: jpreisig@aol.com . > > Howdy Radsafers, > > As usual, Franz is the demanding one and > wants to hear about > tokomaks, fusion and the like. OK, I will try > to comply briefly. > A fairly recent book with fusion discussions > is Emilio Segre's book > on Nuclear and Particle Physics. > > . . . +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tomhaz at aol.com Thu Jun 30 15:34:48 2005 From: tomhaz at aol.com (Tom Hazlett) Date: Thu Jun 30 15:35:10 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] LNT in the news In-Reply-To: <9B9410BB35BC3443BEA0369E880B0BA501323EF1@piex01.pi.nmcco.net> References: <9B9410BB35BC3443BEA0369E880B0BA501323EF1@piex01.pi.nmcco.net> Message-ID: <42C3F4F8.8040902@aol.com> Better start tearing down all those granite buildings too. And ban skiing, and air travel, and bananas, and salt substitute, and........ Tom Hazlett Floyd.Flanigan@nmcco.com wrote: >So ... When does the decommissioning of the Rocky Mountains begin? And where the heck are we gonna bury all of that granite? > >Floyd W.Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P. > >-----Original Message----- >From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl]On >Behalf Of Kolb, William (WKOLB) >Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 4:09 PM >To: radsafe@radlab.nl >Subject: [ RadSafe ] LNT in the news > > >Low radiation levels pose cancer risk Scientists say no threshold below >which exposure is harmless > >The Associated Press Updated: 4:42 p.m. ET June 29, 2005 > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8389834/ > > >Bill >Wkolb >ARINC Inc. > >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > From raymond.ilson at utoronto.ca Thu Jun 30 15:39:28 2005 From: raymond.ilson at utoronto.ca (Raymond Ilson) Date: Thu Jun 30 15:39:54 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HEPA filters for radioisotope fume hoods References: Message-ID: <42C3F610.B72EDD3A@utoronto.ca> Hi Peter: We also have HEPA filters in the exhaust train of most of our laboratory "fume" hoods. In the great majority of cases they serve no purpose, as you have noted. Many years ago I approached each of our safety functions (envir/hygiene/rad) about this and all agreed that they serve no purpose with the possible exception of some geology labs. Perhaps a few hoods in a building could be dedicated to any work requiring such a filter. Biological cabinets/laminar flow hoods are a different matter. Regardless of this, the Facilities and Services management would not remove them. They cited the need to rebalance the systems etc - despite the obvious cost savings of removing the filters and cutting back on the power demands of the exhaust fans. They even quoted the famous "we've always done it this way". My other concern is with the safety of the staff who must remove these filters when they become so dirty that the exhaust becomes inefficient. At that point, some poor building engineer must climb a ladder and remove the filthy filter with considerable difficulty and some danger because this is overhead work. At that time, PPE must be worn because the layers of dust and other materials (kimwipes etc) on the filter may have become contaminated with condensates and the filter is thus an exposure and waste problem! In spite of this, the filter is then replaced (~$80 each?) and so on and so on ...... Common sense seems to elude us on this one! Ray Peter.Vernig@med.va.gov wrote: > Somebody not too long ago, say 1 to 3 years informed me why so many places > have HEPA filtration of fume hoods where radioisotopes are used. In > virtually all research situations dispersible powered radioactive material > is not used so HEPAs make no sense. I have seen them at NASA's Ames > Research Center and UC Berkeley both institutions should know better. > > My recollection is that it was a building code or "best practice" that some > ill advised agency put into place. If the person that sent me the > information or anybody else knows about it I would greatly appreciate > getting it retransmitted to me. I have just discovered such an arrangement > and in order to kill it, it would be very helpful to know the source of the > practice. > > Any opinions in this e-mail are solely those of the author, and are not > represented as those of the VA Eastern Colorado HCS, the Dept. of Veterans > Affairs, or the US Government. > > Peter G. Vernig, Radiation Safety Officer, MS-115, VA Eastern Colorado > Health Care System, 1055 Clermont St. Denver, CO 80220, > peter.vernig@med.va.gov, Phone= 303.399.8020 x2447; Fax = 303.393.5026, > alternate fax, 303.393.5248 > > "...whatever is true, whatever is noble, 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 radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From blc+ at pitt.edu Thu Jun 30 15:50:08 2005 From: blc+ at pitt.edu (Bernard Cohen) Date: Thu Jun 30 15:43:30 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' cancer risk rise In-Reply-To: <002e01c57cc5$454553a0$0200a8c0@DG47BM0J> References: <002e01c57cc5$454553a0$0200a8c0@DG47BM0J> Message-ID: <42C3F890.3030206@pitt.edu> > Just under 200 died from leukaemias, and 6,519 from other cancers. > The researchers say, that from their evidence, 1 to 2% of deaths from > cancer among workers in this study may be attributable to radiation. ---The statistical uncertainty (one standard deviation) is the square root of 6519 which is 81, or 1.2% of the result. So this evidence is essentially meaningless > > From blc+ at pitt.edu Thu Jun 30 15:59:08 2005 From: blc+ at pitt.edu (Bernard Cohen) Date: Thu Jun 30 15:54:33 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20050629093513.027a8d50@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> References: <42C2103C.6050804@chartertn.net> <6.0.1.1.2.20050629093513.027a8d50@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: <42C3FAAC.8070207@pitt.edu> Otto G. Raabe wrote: > Of course, there are also going to be large quantities of contaminated > waste materials produced by neutron activation of reactor components > and other materials in and around a fusion reactor. So fusion reactors > may produce large quantities of radioactive waste. ---In all that has been written in publications for the public about the dangers of radioactive waste, I have never seen any reference to the quantity of radioactivity involved. As a public issue, quantities are apparently irrelevant. So I don't see the difference between fusion and fission radioactive wastes as a public issue. This is a strange world we are dealing with! From blc+ at pitt.edu Thu Jun 30 16:02:58 2005 From: blc+ at pitt.edu (Bernard Cohen) Date: Thu Jun 30 15:57:03 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' cancer risk rise In-Reply-To: <8C7AD67141A06D499823B280003E6C02EDF1D9@svits11.main.ad.rit.edu> References: <8C7AD67141A06D499823B280003E6C02EDF1D9@svits11.main.ad.rit.edu> Message-ID: <42C3FB92.7010003@pitt.edu> A Karam wrote: >There is no way to tell, for example, if the lower-dose groups had more, fewer, or no difference in cancers versus what would be expected. As the data are reported, there is no way to establish any sort of dose/risk relationship. Because of this, I'm afraid I didn't learn much from this paper except that the authors were very diligent in collecting data. > > ---Also, they do not understand statistical uncertainties, like the meaning of a standard deviation From EBARATTA at ORA.FDA.GOV Thu Jun 30 16:04:01 2005 From: EBARATTA at ORA.FDA.GOV (Baratta, Edmond J) Date: Thu Jun 30 16:04:40 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' cancer risk rise Message-ID: <2DCD5C7845865A4DA541502677F6CD569BD8E8@orsnewea002.fda.gov> I couldn't have said it better!!! Edmond J. Baratta Radiation Safety Officer Tel. No. 781-729-5700, ext 728 FAX: 781-729-3593 -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Kolb, William (WKOLB) Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 9:15 AM To: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' cancer risk rise We already know we're going to die but can anyone determine if this finding affects longevity? Bill W Kolb ARINC Inc _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Thu Jun 30 16:10:51 2005 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Thu Jun 30 16:11:18 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Tokomak, Fusion, etc. In-Reply-To: <211.3bb6847.2ff4926b@aol.com> Message-ID: <002101c57d7d$88761070$bf572fd5@pc1> Joe and all the other RADSAFErs who answered my request and gave links and information: Thank you!!! I will need a few days to check all these links and informations, but it is already now clear that I got the informations I asked for. Joe, I would never dare to "demand" anything from RADSAFE, my probably wrong feeling of the English language would rather characterice my question as a very humble inquiry..... Of course my inquiry was directed to the various comments of "I think", "I believe to remember" etc., not excluding myself. We need facts (!!!) to discuss and not hearsay. Best ragards and thank you again! Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] Im > Auftrag von JPreisig@aol.com > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2005 02:10 > An: radsafe@radlab.nl > Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Tokomak, Fusion, etc. > > Hmmmmmm, > > This is from: jpreisig@aol.com . > > Howdy Radsafers, > > As usual, Franz is the demanding one and wants to hear about > tokomaks, fusion and the like. OK, I will try to comply briefly. > A fairly recent book with fusion discussions is Emilio Segre's book > on Nuclear and Particle Physics. > > Tokomaks are ring-like structures (a torous or donut shape) > which > use magnetic fields to contain the eventual hot plasma gas. The NSTX at > Princeton > (PPPL) is like a tokomak whose outside radius has been shrunk so that > the donut shape approaches a more spherical torous shape. > > The basic fusion reactions are deuterium on deuterium and/or > deuterium on tritium. The second reaction produces 15 MeV > neutrons. These 15 MeV neutrons can interact with the fusion reactor > assembly (metals and other materials) and neutron activate such > materials. Such neutron activation is described in the book > Accelerator > Health Physics by Patterson and Thomas and in a more dedicated book on > activation, which is probably listed in Patterson & Thomas' references. > > The energies to make the fusion reactions go is typically 10 to > 50 > keV. So, if you put in 10 to 50 keV and can get 15 MeV out (via the > neutrons), then you gain energy by making fusion reactions happen. > You have to contain the fusion plasma with magnetic fields or else the > plasma will interact with the fusion reactor (material) walls and > destroy > the > fusion reactor structure. > > The TFTR at PPPL was a tokomak of sorts, I believe. > > You can breed tritium by allowing the fusion neutrons to interact > with a > blanket of Lithium, as alluded to by other persons posting to radsafe. > > The fusion reaction must achieve a sufficient temperature for > the > reaction to go, and must have a density of D and T ions sufficient to > have a significant number of fusion reactions occur. Also one wants > to > keep the plasma "together" for a useful amount of time to get net > energy > out. If the D and T particles are indeed ions, then these ions repell > each other electromagnetically. > > Clearly D,T fusion occurs all the time in neutron generators. > But > the reaction is not occuring on a large (spatial) scale. > > Tokomaks work to confine plasmas because plasmas leaking from > one section of the tokomak leak only into other regions of the > tokomak. > The fusion reaction is always contained by magnetic fields. > > On and On, Blah, Blah, Blah. > > The deutrium for the fusions was supposed to come from ocean > water. As stated earlier, tritium can be bred in a fusion reactor. > > Franz, if you have more specific questions, just ask them and I > will > try to answer. If the question is beyond me, I will just say so. > > Regards, Joseph R. (Joe) Preisig, Ph.D. > > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From danny.mcclung at louisville.edu Thu Jun 30 16:13:21 2005 From: danny.mcclung at louisville.edu (Danny K McClung) Date: Thu Jun 30 16:13:58 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] LNT in the news Message-ID: The NAS obviously meant "above natural background"? Didn't they? Danny K. McClung, RRPT Health Physicist/Asst. RSO ******************** University of Louisville Health Sciences Center 319 Abraham Flexner Way Room 102, Building 55A Louisville, KY 40202 502-852-5231 (phone) 502-852-8911 (fax) GO CARDS !! From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Thu Jun 30 16:52:21 2005 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Thu Jun 30 16:52:37 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' cancer risk rise In-Reply-To: <42C3F890.3030206@pitt.edu> Message-ID: <002801c57d83$5212f8d0$bf572fd5@pc1> Is there still anyody at RADSAFE who takes reports from newspapers, TV-stations or other massmedia serious? If you do, blame yourself. Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] Im > Auftrag von Bernard Cohen > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2005 15:50 > An: Fred Dawson > Cc: radsafe@radlab.nl > Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' cancer risk rise > > > > Just under 200 died from leukaemias, and 6,519 from other cancers. > > The researchers say, that from their evidence, 1 to 2% of deaths from > > cancer among workers in this study may be attributable to radiation. > > ---The statistical uncertainty (one standard deviation) is the > square root of 6519 which is 81, or 1.2% of the result. So this > evidence is essentially meaningless > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From AnaLog at logwell.com Thu Jun 30 08:25:21 2005 From: AnaLog at logwell.com (AnaLog Services, Inc.) Date: Thu Jun 30 16:57:22 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access References: Message-ID: <005701c57d3c$800e55a0$0100a8c0@House> Or the yellow pages? Syd H. Levine AnaLog Services, Inc. Phone: 270-276-5671 Telefax: 270-276-5588 E-mail: analog@logwell.com URL: www.logwell.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Gv1@aol.com To: syd.levine@mindspring.com ; Robert.Young@state.tn.us ; BLHamrick@aol.com ; james.g.barnes@att.net ; WesVanPelt@att.net ; radsafe@radlab.nl Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access You can find the best address to steal a high activity source to make a dirty bomb by searching through licenses... Risk/benefit assessment... Glen From cindydrake at excite.com Thu Jun 30 05:21:21 2005 From: cindydrake at excite.com (Cindy) Date: Thu Jun 30 16:57:36 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] (no subject) Message-ID: <20050630032121.A3B6CB6F0@xprdmailfe19.nwk.excite.com> I have a friend who was overexposed with radiation some years ago. He has now developed symptoms and would like someone to examine him. Should he seek a Health Physist, an MD of some kind, or some other type of expert? Who are the really experienced individuals in this area? Cindy D. _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Thu Jun 30 16:59:18 2005 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto G. Raabe) Date: Thu Jun 30 16:59:51 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII In-Reply-To: <2DCD5C7845865A4DA541502677F6CD569BD8E5@orsnewea002.fda.gov > References: <2DCD5C7845865A4DA541502677F6CD569BD8E5@orsnewea002.fda.gov> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050630075626.03238ed0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> Yesterday, June 29, 2005, the National Academy unveiled the long-awaited BEIR VII. You can read it yourself at http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html Comments please... Otto ********************************************** Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP Center for Health & the Environment (Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road) University of California, Davis, CA 95616 E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140 *********************************************** From blc+ at pitt.edu Thu Jun 30 17:09:07 2005 From: blc+ at pitt.edu (Bernard Cohen) Date: Thu Jun 30 17:02:27 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NO safe radiation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42C40B13.70303@pitt.edu> "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of >exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be >demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said Richard R. Monson, the >panel chairman and a professor of epidemiology at >Harvard's School of Public Health. > ---There are millions of substances for which exposure to low levels cannot be demonstrated to be harmless. Does that mean that they are harmful? I don't understand this convoluted reasoning. > > > From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Thu Jun 30 17:05:05 2005 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto G. Raabe) Date: Thu Jun 30 17:06:15 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' cancer risk rise In-Reply-To: <42C3F890.3030206@pitt.edu> References: <002e01c57cc5$454553a0$0200a8c0@DG47BM0J> <42C3F890.3030206@pitt.edu> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050630080140.03566790@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 06:50 AM 6/30/2005, Bernard Cohen wrote: >>Just under 200 died from leukaemias, and 6,519 from other cancers. The >>researchers say, that from their evidence, 1 to 2% of deaths from cancer >>among workers in this study may be attributable to radiation. > > ---The statistical uncertainty (one standard deviation) is the > square root of 6519 which is 81, or 1.2% of the result. So this evidence > is essentially meaningless Yes, but they only say "may be attributable". They don't say "are attributable". Their claim is based on finding a significant slope to the linear dose-response relationship fit over all dose groups. Otto ********************************************** Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP Center for Health & the Environment (Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road) University of California, Davis, CA 95616 E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140 *********************************************** From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Thu Jun 30 17:22:08 2005 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto G. Raabe) Date: Thu Jun 30 17:22:42 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII Summary Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050630081753.024c45c8@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> The National Academy BEIR VII Report Executive Summary and list of Committee members is at: http://www.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11340.pdf Comments please... Otto ********************************************** Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP Center for Health & the Environment (Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road) University of California, Davis, CA 95616 E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140 *********************************************** From frantaj at aecl.ca Thu Jun 30 17:22:47 2005 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Thu Jun 30 17:23:11 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A43B@sps13.aecl.ca> >As a public issue, quantities are apparently irrelevant. >So I don't see the difference between fusion >and fission radioactive wastes as a public issue. >This is a strange world we are dealing with! ============= Indeed ! The public issue appears instead to be that ITER "seeks to mimic the way the sun produces energy," or "reproducing the sun's power source" (warm & fuzzy image), while NIF & other inertial confinement fusion schemes "simulate fusion reactions that occur in hydrogen bombs" (horror!) -- and of course fission reactors "split atoms, like A-bombs." In fact, our fusion reactors are very much UNLIKE the sun, in both operating conditions and fuel type, fusion marketing propaganda notwithstanding. Fusion reactors and the Sun don't even operate on the same physical force, and there aren't any D-D or D-T reactions in the Sun -- both accounting for the fact that the Sun burns for billions of years, instead of blowing up. The Sun *depends* on reactions using the weak nuclear force, while reactors & bombs use fuels that can be fused quickly & relatively easily using the strong nuclear force only. In his seminal book "Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis," Donald Clayton writes concerning p-p fusion that the weak nuclear interaction is so exceedingly rare, that the deuterium (D) that has been formed never actually encounters another D. As Clayton explains, "after the deuterium has been formed [in the p-p fusion], one could imagine that He-4 might be produced by the reaction D + D --> He-4 + u. This reaction, however, suffers from..... the fact that the deuterium abundance is kept very small by its interaction with protons [in the reaction D + p --> He-3 + u, following which the helium nuclei fuse according to He-3 + He-3 --> He-4 + p + p ]. .....That these are the major reactions comes about because..... D can build up only to a very small abundance." [ie. two Ds never bump into each other in the sea of protons....] According to http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/N-Q/phys/people/vdhillon/teaching/phy213/ phy213_fusion3.html , "This [p-p] reaction occurs via the weak nuclear force and the average proton in the Sun will undergo such a reaction approximately once in the lifetime of the Sun, i.e. once every 10 billion years" (the sun's life) ...this in spite of the fact that the protons undergo approximately 10 billion collisions per second with other protons in the solar interior. Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Thu Jun 30 17:37:24 2005 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Thu Jun 30 17:37:42 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! In-Reply-To: <42C3FAAC.8070207@pitt.edu> Message-ID: <002d01c57d89$9faa3210$bf572fd5@pc1> This was exactly why I asked for relevant information about ITER. Studying the responses would have given both Raabe and Cohen enough information to formulate acceptable responses. For discussion we need facts - and not meanings like "I think" "I have read",........... Almost always it seems to me that some (selve conceived) radiation protection celebrities comment on issues at RADSAFE without ever having read the comments on a certain topic. Having been on vacations recently I promise RADSAFErs a continuation of the thread regarding linking lung cancers to Radon-222 concentrations, Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] Im > Auftrag von Bernard Cohen > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2005 15:59 > An: Otto G. Raabe > Cc: radsafe@radlab.nl > Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! > > > Otto G. Raabe wrote: > > > Of course, there are also going to be large quantities of contaminated > > waste materials produced by neutron activation of reactor components > > and other materials in and around a fusion reactor. So fusion reactors > > may produce large quantities of radioactive waste. > > ---In all that has been written in publications for the public > about the dangers of radioactive waste, I have never seen any reference > to the quantity of radioactivity involved. As a public issue, quantities > are apparently irrelevant. So I don't see the difference between fusion > and fission radioactive wastes as a public issue. This is a strange > world we are dealing with! > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From sandyfl at earthlink.net Thu Jun 30 18:12:03 2005 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu Jun 30 18:13:19 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Germany to compensate 500 ex-soldiers who developed cancer after radiation exposure Message-ID: <42C3B763.21212.7F5E24@localhost> NOTE: I've posted pictures from yesterday afternoon at Disneyland California Adventure. I will NO LONGER post notices of picture posting to Radsafe. If you want to continue to receive these notices, please E-Mail me and I will add your name to the Photo Distribution List: http://sandy-travels.com/caladventure.shtml Index: Germany to compensate 500 ex-soldiers who developed cancer German police find radioactive container in street Fire breaks out at nuclear waste disposal facility in central Japan Ukraine and China sign treaty on peaceful use of nuclear energy =========================================== Germany to compensate 500 ex-soldiers who developed cancer after radiation exposure BERLIN (AP) - Germany's defense ministry said Wednesday it would compensate some 500 former soldiers who have suffered from cancer due to exposure to radiation while serving in the army. A government commission tasked with studying the issue said the selected men would receive an extra pension as compensation for their suffering. It did not name a sum. German soldiers and their families have long sought damages for illnesses such as leukemia and testicular cancer that they believe is the result of poor protection against radiation from radar equipment. About 2,500 former soldiers originally applied for compensation, but many were rejected on the basis they were not suffering from a radiation-related illness, or did not serve in exposed areas. The claimants include soldiers who served in the armies of both the former West Germany and communist East Germany. ------------------ German police find radioactive container in street BERLIN, June 30 (Reuters) - Police in the German city of Wiesbaden sealed off a busy street on Thursday after a passer-by discovered a small container with a radioactive warning symbol and emergency services confirmed low levels of radiation. A police spokeswoman said there were faint traces of radiation from both the metal container and a nearby dustbin, but the levels were too low to pose any danger. "We're taking this very seriously and taking sensible measures, but at the moment it doesn't look like turning into an emergency situation," spokeswoman Gaby Goebel said. She said the area had not been contaminated and no one had been exposed to radiation or needed hospital checks. But residents had been told to stay indoors while specialists examined the container and dustbin. The street, popular for its cafes and restaurants, had been closed off. Police were working on the theory that the low-level radioactive material could have come from a hospital. --------------------- Fire breaks out at nuclear waste disposal facility in central Japan, no injury or radiation leak TOKYO (AP) - A fire broke out at a nuclear waste disposal facility in central Japan on Thursday, but no injuries were reported and there was no radiation leak, the plant operator said. It was not immediately clear what sparked the blaze in the basement of the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant's disposal facility, some 200 kilometers (120 miles) southwest of Tokyo, said Shigehisa Osawa, spokesman for Chubu Electric Power Co. The disposal facility is not in the same building as the plant's nuclear reactors, he said, and did not cause a radiation leak. Osawa did not know whether the disposal facility dealt with radioactive materials. The Hamaoka plant is located in Omaezaki, a city Shizuoka Prefecture (state) in central Japan. Plant officials were investigating the cause of the fire and the extent of the damage to the building, Osawa said. -------------------- Ukraine and China sign treaty on peaceful use of nuclear energy KIEV, Ukraine (AP)- Ukraine announced Thursday that it had signed a treaty with China aimed at improving cooperation in nuclear energy. The treaty is tailored "to contribute to bilateral cooperation in peaceful use of nuclear energy," and was signed Wednesday by Wang Yuqing, deputy minister of the Chinese State Environmental Protection Administration and his Ukrainian counterpart Vadym Gryscshenko, a statement from Ukraine's State Committee for Nuclear Regulation said. "The agreement also envisions cooperation in the areas of safety regulations and accident management," it said. Ukraine operates 15 nuclear reactors, and China has about 40. Ukraine was the site of the world's worst nuclear accident, the 1986 reactor meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear plant, which spewed radiation over much of northern Europe. Chernobyl was shuttered in 2000. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From jallan at slac.stanford.edu Thu Jun 30 18:31:25 2005 From: jallan at slac.stanford.edu (Allan, Jim) Date: Thu Jun 30 18:31:33 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cutting radioactive Iron Message-ID: <8CF98BE8D19EA84BA2271BE19BE8F834CF6562@exch-mail2.win.slac.stanford.edu> I am looking for HP types who have experience with cutting large low level radioactive scrap type iron pieces with torches etc. We are considering this operation and am interested in radiological controls used. Contact Jim at Jallan@SLAC.stanford.edu Thank you From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jun 30 18:32:12 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu Jun 30 18:32:22 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <20050630032121.A3B6CB6F0@xprdmailfe19.nwk.excite.com> Message-ID: <20050630163212.41388.qmail@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> He should be examined by a medical physician experienced in this type of work, like a radiation oncologist. How did this occur? --- Cindy wrote: > > I have a friend who was overexposed with radiation > some years ago. > He has now developed symptoms and would like someone > to examine him. > Should he seek a Health Physist, an MD of some kind, > or some other type of expert? Who are the really > experienced individuals in this area? > Cindy D. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com > The most personalized portal on the Web! > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing > list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have > read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be > found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe > and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jun 30 18:33:55 2005 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu Jun 30 18:34:06 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' cancer risk rise In-Reply-To: <2DCD5C7845865A4DA541502677F6CD569BD8E8@orsnewea002.fda.gov> Message-ID: <20050630163356.87538.qmail@web54301.mail.yahoo.com> Having better medical care will make such a determination almost impossible. --- "Baratta, Edmond J" wrote: > I couldn't have said it better!!! > > Edmond J. Baratta > Radiation Safety Officer > Tel. No. 781-729-5700, ext 728 > FAX: 781-729-3593 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl > [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf > Of Kolb, William (WKOLB) > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 9:15 AM > To: radsafe@radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] BBC Reports "Nuclear workers' > cancer risk rise > > We already know we're going to die but can anyone > determine if this > finding affects longevity? > > Bill > W Kolb > ARINC Inc > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing > list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have > read and understood the > RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe > and other settings visit: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing > list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have > read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be > found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe > and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com From tomhaz at aol.com Thu Jun 30 18:49:52 2005 From: tomhaz at aol.com (Tom Hazlett) Date: Thu Jun 30 18:50:03 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] LNT in the news In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42C422B0.7020706@aol.com> OK, So the implication is that naturaly occuring radiation is safe. " Hmmm" says Homer Simpson "natural radiation good, man made radiation bad"! I guess what works marketing wise with "natural foods" can be applied here too. Its bad science but excellent marketing. Tom danny.mcclung@louisville.edu wrote: >The NAS obviously meant "above natural background"? Didn't they? > >Danny K. McClung, RRPT >Health Physicist/Asst. RSO >******************** >University of Louisville >Health Sciences Center >319 Abraham Flexner Way >Room 102, Building 55A >Louisville, KY 40202 >502-852-5231 (phone) >502-852-8911 (fax) > >GO CARDS !! > >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > From jjcohen at prodigy.net Thu Jun 30 18:54:50 2005 From: jjcohen at prodigy.net (jjcohen@prodigy.net) Date: Thu Jun 30 18:54:07 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NAS "impartiality" Message-ID: <001a01c57d94$6e7f5e80$57ece245@domainnotset.invalid> Is anyone familiar with how the National Academy of Science (NAS) selects members for its study panels? It seems to me that by judicious selection of members, almost any predetermined conclusion can be attained. The expert committees can reference or ignore any material they choose. They typically compile a massive volume summarizing what they have chosen to review and formulate conclusions supposedly based upon their review. Maybe I just don't get it, but from the few NAS studies I have attempted to understand, it was almost impossible to track how the conclusions were reached from the material reviewed. I suspect the whole process is largely arbitrary, but perhaps someone can straighten me out. Jerry Cohen From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Thu Jun 30 19:02:55 2005 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Thu Jun 30 19:03:11 2005 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20050630075626.03238ed0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: <002e01c57d95$92875930$bf572fd5@pc1> I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the message about BEIR VII has been distributed at RADSAFE already yesterday. Maybe you should, as I recommended, read the RADSAFE contributions by "non-celebrities". Regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer PhD, MR iR Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Vienna AUSTRIA phone -43-0699-1168-1319 > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] Im > Auftrag von Otto G. Raabe > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2005 16:59 > An: radsafe@radlab.nl > Betreff: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII > > Yesterday, June 29, 2005, the National Academy unveiled the long-awaited > BEIR VII. You can read it yourself at > > http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html > > Comments please... > > Otto > > ********************************************** > Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP > Center for Health & the Environment > (Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road) > University of California, Davis, CA 95616 > E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu > Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140 > *********************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From EBARATTA at ORA.FDA.GOV Thu Jun 30 19:14:48 2005 From: EBARATTA at ORA.FDA.GOV (Baratta, Edmond J) Date: Thu Jun 30 19:16:08 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] LNT in the news Message-ID: <2DCD5C7845865A4DA541502677F6CD569BD8EA@orsnewea002.fda.gov> What 'natural' background are they referring to: Colorado, Utah, Idaho, etc, or Florida, New Orleans MI. Don't forget the exposure from internal radiation (K-40), if you are at a sports event, or is that 'harmless'. This also means no more X-Rays and other tests involving radioisotopes. When will this end. Edmond J. Baratta Radiation Safety Officer Tel. No. 781-729-5700, ext 728 FAX: 781-729-3593 This represents my opinion and not that of my Agency!! -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Danny K McClung Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:13 AM To: tomhaz@aol.com; radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] LNT in the news The NAS obviously meant "above natural background"? Didn't they? Danny K. McClung, RRPT Health Physicist/Asst. RSO ******************** University of Louisville Health Sciences Center 319 Abraham Flexner Way Room 102, Building 55A Louisville, KY 40202 502-852-5231 (phone) 502-852-8911 (fax) GO CARDS !! _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From hflong at pacbell.net Thu Jun 30 19:18:38 2005 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Thu Jun 30 19:18:48 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical Evaluation (or symptoms possibly from radiation overexposure) In-Reply-To: <20050630032121.A3B6CB6F0@xprdmailfe19.nwk.excite.com> Message-ID: <20050630171838.58095.qmail@web81805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Your friend's family doctor could 1, check for skin cancers (likely from other causes), 2, take a white blood cell count (unlikely to show either too many or too few) 3, compare the dose received to a CT scan, about 1 rad, even 10 of which are more likely to give less cancer, as indicated by data from Chernobyl, Hiroshima, etc. Those should be easily done, as well as as review of far more likely causes of cancer and other trouble from diet, lack of exercise, stress, etc, in a regualr yearly checkup most doctors advise. Howard Long MD MPH I have a friend who was overexposed with radiation some years ago. He has now developed symptoms and would like someone to examine him. Should he seek a Health Physist, an MD of some kind, or some other type of expert? Who are the really experienced individuals in this area? Cindy D. _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From jjcohen at prodigy.net Thu Jun 30 19:39:25 2005 From: jjcohen at prodigy.net (jjcohen@prodigy.net) Date: Thu Jun 30 19:38:44 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NO safe radiation References: <42C40B13.70303@pitt.edu> Message-ID: <005101c57d9a$a94600e0$57ece245@domainnotset.invalid> How is it possible to demonstrate that anything is harmless? Isn't that like proving a negative--- which is impossible?! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernard Cohen" To: "Dave Biela" Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 8:09 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] NO safe radiation > > > > "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of > > >exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be > >demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said Richard R. Monson, the > >panel chairman and a professor of epidemiology at > >Harvard's School of Public Health. > > > ---There are millions of substances for which exposure to low > levels cannot be demonstrated to be harmless. Does that mean that they > are harmful? I don't understand this convoluted reasoning. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From frantaj at aecl.ca Thu Jun 30 19:46:49 2005 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Thu Jun 30 19:47:01 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Germany to compensate 500 ex-soldiers who develop ed cancer after radiation exposure Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A43C@sps13.aecl.ca> German soldiers and their families have long sought damages for illnesses such as leukemia and testicular cancer that they believe is the result of poor protection against radiation from radar equipment. Soooo.... was this radar equipment made of DU, or what ? Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From jimm at WPI.EDU Thu Jun 30 20:30:41 2005 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Thu Jun 30 20:34:34 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NAS "impartiality" Message-ID: BEIR Committees are select4ed by the permanent Board on Radiation Effects Research. A few years ago this Board was directed in what it should do by Warren Sinclair. It is part of the permanent self-selected cabal that runs rad protection in the US and internationally. (Note the extensive int'l participation.) Regards, Jim Muckerheide ________________________________ From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl on behalf of jjcohen@prodigy.net Sent: Thu 6/30/2005 12:54 PM To: radsafe Subject: [ RadSafe ] NAS "impartiality" Is anyone familiar with how the National Academy of Science (NAS) selects members for its study panels? It seems to me that by judicious selection of members, almost any predetermined conclusion can be attained. The expert committees can reference or ignore any material they choose. They typically compile a massive volume summarizing what they have chosen to review and formulate conclusions supposedly based upon their review. Maybe I just don't get it, but from the few NAS studies I have attempted to understand, it was almost impossible to track how the conclusions were reached from the material reviewed. I suspect the whole process is largely arbitrary, but perhaps someone can straighten me out. Jerry Cohen _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From wilsonr at psns.navy.mil Thu Jun 30 20:34:42 2005 From: wilsonr at psns.navy.mil (Wilson Robert H PSNS) Date: Thu Jun 30 20:35:22 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NO safe radiation Message-ID: <460EADE58BE5BC43AA1502DD4A971E54024928D7@spssvr067.psns.sy> It seems to me it depends upon how you define "harmful". Does it necessarily have to be cancer or death? Does it necessarily have to be a permanent affect? -----Original Message----- From: jjcohen@prodigy.net [mailto:jjcohen@prodigy.net] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:39 AM To: Bernard Cohen; Dave Biela Cc: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NO safe radiation How is it possible to demonstrate that anything is harmless? Isn't that like proving a negative--- which is impossible?! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernard Cohen" To: "Dave Biela" Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 8:09 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] NO safe radiation > > > > "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of > > >exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be > >demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said Richard R. Monson, the > >panel chairman and a professor of epidemiology at > >Harvard's School of Public Health. > > > ---There are millions of substances for which exposure to low > levels cannot be demonstrated to be harmless. Does that mean that they > are harmful? I don't understand this convoluted reasoning. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From jimm at WPI.EDU Thu Jun 30 20:34:15 2005 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Thu Jun 30 20:36:39 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! Message-ID: Are there any long-lived activation products? How big a "problem" is C-14? Regards, Jim ________________________________ From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl on behalf of Bernard Cohen Sent: Thu 6/30/2005 9:59 AM To: Otto G. Raabe Cc: radsafe@radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! Otto G. Raabe wrote: > Of course, there are also going to be large quantities of contaminated > waste materials produced by neutron activation of reactor components > and other materials in and around a fusion reactor. So fusion reactors > may produce large quantities of radioactive waste. ---In all that has been written in publications for the public about the dangers of radioactive waste, I have never seen any reference to the quantity of radioactivity involved. As a public issue, quantities are apparently irrelevant. So I don't see the difference between fusion and fission radioactive wastes as a public issue. This is a strange world we are dealing with! _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From ROBBARISH at aol.com Thu Jun 30 20:42:33 2005 From: ROBBARISH at aol.com (ROBBARISH@aol.com) Date: Thu Jun 30 20:42:50 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII Message-ID: <208.40d3d53.2ff59719@aol.com> Dear Colleagues: Before too many of you go overboard about the new BEIR report, I suggest that you look at Chapter 12 and, more specifically, do some math with respect to the data in tables 12-6 and 12-7. For many years the assumed cancer mortality derived from the LNT model at low-dose rates has been expressed as 4 per 100,000 individuals exposed to a total of 1 mSv "excess radiation" over their lifetime. This came from applying a dose-dose-rate-effectiveness factor (DDREF) of approximately 1.5 to cancer mortality estimates based on high-dose instantaneous exposures. So 4 per 100,000 per 1 mSv is a number that has been in use for at least 15 years to represent excess cancer mortality. Since the "normal" incidence of fatal cancer in our society is 23,000 out of 100,000 individuals that "excess" of 4 is pretty inconsequential. Even if one assumes a dose of 1 mSv over a 100 year lifetime, the risk becomes 4 in 1,000 with an projected 234 fatal cancers instead of 230 expected with no exposure above "normal." If you look at the data in the two tables, one for solid cancer and the other for leukemia, and concentrate on the mortality section you can see the values for a 1 mSv exposure per year throughout a persons entire life. Using the "preferred estimates" from the committee, the values of 337 (290 + 47) for males and 498 (460 + 38) for females average to just about the same 4 per 100,000 for a one-hundred year lifetime. Looking at the "adult exposure" rows in these tables, ages 18 to 65, and dividing by 10 to get 1 mSv per year as a comparison, the numbers are 170 (141+ 29) for males and 239 (217 + 22) for females which averages to 2.05 over 47 years, or about the same 4 per 100,000 for 100 years. So despite the hoopla which is being created, the numbers are the same LNT values that have been around for at least a decade. This can be confirmed by looking at Table 12-8 which shows the comparison with the earlier BEIR V report from 1990. There the numbers are for "excess deaths" for a population of 100,000 of all ages and both sexes exposed to 100 mSv. The BEIR V number adjusted for DDREF is 460 solid tumors + 95 leukemias = 555 fatalities. The BEIR VII numbers are 510 solid tumors + 61 leukemias = 571 fatalities. Which, of course, are essentially the same values given the large 95% confidence intervals on all of these numbers. So why are we getting upset? Nothing has changed in 15 years. The only reason I can think of is that those who are opposed to the use of LNT have not had their objections to that model confirmed in the new report. Also, the press seems to love reporting this as something new when, in fact its the same old stuff. Regards. Rob Barish, Ph.D. CHP From maurysis at ev1.net Thu Jun 30 21:28:40 2005 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Thu Jun 30 21:28:42 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Germany to compensate 500 ex-soldiers who develop ed cancer after radiation exposure In-Reply-To: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A43C@sps13.aecl.ca> References: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A43C@sps13.aecl.ca> Message-ID: <42C447E8.6040108@ev1.net> Cooked by microwaves or by ionizing radiation -- wuts yer pleasure? Please specify organic or man-made and how well done .... And OTH radar (over the horizon) available only by special request ... sigh. Cheers, Maury&Dog (maurysis@ev1.net) ======================= Franta, Jaroslav wrote: >German soldiers and their families have long sought damages for >illnesses such as leukemia and testicular cancer that they believe is >the result of poor protection against radiation from radar equipment. > > >Soooo.... was this radar equipment made of DU, or what ? > >Jaro > > From maurysis at ev1.net Thu Jun 30 21:29:04 2005 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Thu Jun 30 21:29:05 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Germany to compensate 500 ex-soldiers who develop ed cancer after radiation exposure In-Reply-To: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A43C@sps13.aecl.ca> References: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A43C@sps13.aecl.ca> Message-ID: <42C44800.1080006@ev1.net> Cooked by microwaves or by ionizing radiation -- wuts yer pleasure? Please specify organic or man-made and how well done .... And OTH radar (over the horizon) available only by special request ... sigh. Cheers, Maury&Dog (maurysis@ev1.net) ======================= Franta, Jaroslav wrote: >German soldiers and their families have long sought damages for >illnesses such as leukemia and testicular cancer that they believe is >the result of poor protection against radiation from radar equipment. > > >Soooo.... was this radar equipment made of DU, or what ? > >Jaro > > From maurysis at ev1.net Thu Jun 30 21:44:09 2005 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Thu Jun 30 21:44:09 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] LNT in the news In-Reply-To: <2DCD5C7845865A4DA541502677F6CD569BD8EA@orsnewea002.fda.gov> References: <2DCD5C7845865A4DA541502677F6CD569BD8EA@orsnewea002.fda.gov> Message-ID: <42C44B89.9020704@ev1.net> The epochal merge: Politics amd Science BIER VII + LNT Science Submerged + Congress = POLITICS SUPREME Great jumpin' butterballs!!! Maury&Dog (maurysis@ev1.net) ___________ "We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex -- but Congress can." (give 'em time) =============== >What 'natural' background are they referring to: Colorado, Utah, Idaho, >etc, or Florida, New Orleans MI. Don't forget the exposure from internal > > ---------- snipped -------- From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Thu Jun 30 21:48:57 2005 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Thu Jun 30 21:49:13 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Whole-body counting and actinides In-Reply-To: <015201c57d6a$132f00a0$fa01810a@D7G9SB0J> Message-ID: Khalid The best 2 I know of are the HC WBC in Ottawa run by Garry Kramer and the PNNL/DOE lab at Hanford run by Tim Lynch. I'm copying them for their and your information. John _________________ 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: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl]On Behalf Of KHALID ALEISSA Sent: June 30, 2005 4:52 AM To: RADSAFE Subject: [ RadSafe ] Whole-body counting and actinides I have interest in knowing a professional laboratory who could do whole-body counting for actinides (detail address and capabilities). Furthermore, what would be the most sensitive detection whole-body in detecting alpha emitting radionuclide in human lung or hot spots in the body. Best regards Khalid Aleissa _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From sandyfl at earthlink.net Thu Jun 30 22:11:50 2005 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu Jun 30 22:13:19 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BNFL might announce Westinghouse sale - sources Message-ID: <42C3EF96.9125.15B2AAB@localhost> Index: BNFL might announce Westinghouse sale - sources Study shows radiation causes cancer but rarely NASA Funds Space Radiation Research Proposals France targets greenhouse gas, nuclear plan to help Report: North Korea resumes building nuclear reactors Report Of Hamaoka Nuclear Plant Disposal Unit Fire-Kyodo Radioactive Material Detection With High-Energy Cargo X-ray Screening ====================================== BNFL might announce Westinghouse sale - sources LONDON, June 30 (Reuters) - UK nuclear energy company BNFL plans on Friday to announce it is reviewing options including a sale of its Westinghouse power plant construction business, sources familiar with the situation said on Thursday. Westinghouse, which operates mostly in the United States, is worth about 1 billion pounds ($1.8 billion) and is expected to attract interest from engineering companies such as General Electric Co. and possibly private equity firms, the sources said. "BNFL will be commenting on their results and any further announcements at a press conference tomorrow morning," said a spokeswoman for BNFL, which is being advised by investment bank Rothschild. A small information pack on the business -- known as a teaser -- could be sent to prospective bidders for the unit as early as next week and state-owned BNFL expects to take about six months to reach any sale agreement, the sources said. The UK may eventually opt to sell BNFL, which owns the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in northwest England, but first will come the decision on Westinghouse, bankers said. The British government agreed in 2003 to underwrite the firm's nuclear liabilities as part of a rescue package for rival nuclear company British Energy Plc. This could make BNFL more attractive to potential bidders such as France's Areva. Still, the political sensitivity of the company's operations may preclude a full sale, the bankers said. ------------------- Study shows radiation causes cancer but rarely WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Exposure to everyday sources of radiation, mostly medical X-rays, raises the risk of cancer but not by much and there is no clear line between a harmless dose and a disease-causing dose, an expert panel reported Wednesday. People should think twice about having unnecessary high-dose X-rays such as the full-body CAT scans being offered by some clinics, the panel advised, but otherwise should be reassured by the findings. The report from the National Research Council updates 1990 findings based mostly on survivors of the 1945 atomic bomb attacks against Japan, about 45 percent of whom are still alive. A low dose of about 100 millisieverts of radiation -- the equivalent of 1,000 chest X-rays -- can be expected to cause cancer in one out of every 100 people, the report finds. "About 42 additional people in the same group would be expected to develop solid cancer or leukemia from other causes. Roughly half of these cancers would result in death," adds the report, available at http://national-academies.org. Cancer is the second-biggest killer in much of the world after heart disease. The American Cancer Society estimates that nearly 1.4 million Americans will learn this year that they have cancer and 563,700 will die of it, but it says two thirds of cases are caused by tobacco use, poor eating, lack of exercise and obesity. The report ties in with another issued Wednesday, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer in France, which studied more than 400,000 nuclear industry workers and found they had a 10 percent increased risk of death from cancer. The National Research Council is part of the National Academy of Sciences, an independent organization set up by Congress to guide government on matters of health and science. This is its seventh report on radiation. NO SAFE EXPOSURE "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said committee chair Richard Monson, a professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. "The health risks -- particularly the development of solid cancers in organs -- rise proportionally with exposure." But the report said few people are exposed to very much radiation. It recommends further study of infants and children exposed to radiation through X-rays or radiation treatment for cancer. It also recommends more study of people who get frequent doses, such as those who get repeated CAT scans. "I think what we can do is assure people that medical radiation as currently done for good reasons is part of medical care," Monson told a news conference. "But ... prudence should be the guideline and exposure to any unnecessary radiation should be avoided and what is unnecessary is up to an individual." Most sources of radiation are natural -- gamma rays from space, and radon from the ground, air and water. "These sources account for about 82 percent of human exposure," the report reads. The 18 percent of human-made radiation comes mostly from medical radiation but also tobacco, televisions and smoke detectors. -------------------- NASA Funds Space Radiation Research Proposals WASHINGTON, June 29 /PRNewswire/ -- NASA selected 21 space radiation research proposals for funding. Approximately $19 million will be spent on the research to support the Vision for Space Exploration. The goal of NASA's Space Radiation Program is to ensure humans can safely live and work in space. Safely means acceptable risks are not exceeded during crews' lifetime. Acceptable risks include limits on post and multi-mission consequences, such as excess lifetime fatal cancer vulnerability. Exposure to radiation during space flight is unavoidable. Space radiation penetrates the crew, spacesuits, spacecraft, habitats, and equipment. The interaction of radiation with materials changes both; and the interaction with living organisms leads to potentially harmful health consequences. The consequences include tissue damage, cancer, cataracts, electronic upsets, and material degradation. Space radiation is distinct from terrestrial forms. Space radiation is comprised of high-energy protons, heavy ions and their secondaries produced in shielding and tissue. Since there are no human epidemiological data for these radiation types, risk estimation is derived from mechanistic understanding. The estimates are based on radiation physics, molecular, cellular, and tissue biology related to cancer and other risks. NASA received 115 responses to the request for proposals issued on August 24, 2004. Proposals were peer-reviewed by scientific and technical experts from academia, government, and industry. The 21 proposals will seek to reduce the uncertainties in risk predictions, including cancer, degenerative tissue damage, cataracts, hereditary, fertility, and sterility. They also cover acute risks and development of effective shielding or biological countermeasures for them. -------------------- France targets greenhouse gas, nuclear plan to help CADARACHE, France, June 30 (Reuters) - President Jacques Chirac said on Thursday the country stood by its pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions and said a new nuclear fusion project hosted by France could lead to a cleaner form of energy. France was picked on Tuesday to build the world's first nuclear fusion reactor in the southern town of Cadarache, about 70 Km (45 miles) from Marseille. Backers of the project said it could one day provide the world with endless cheap energy. But environmentalists have criticized France for hosting the reactor, calling it a waste of money and resources that could be better used to cut greenhouse gases. "Given the greenhouse effect, our battle is to stabilise emissions between now and the end of 2012 and to cut them by a quarter between now and 2050," Chirac said at a visit to the site of the future nuclear reactor. The experimental reactor has a price tag of 10 billion euros ($12.18 billion). "The aim is one day to be able to develop an abundant energy source for humanity, an energy source that doesn't damage the climate," he said. Environmental campaigners Greenpeace said it was a "ridiculous" project and the Sortir du Nucleaire grouping of 718 anti-nuclear groups, called it a "financial black hole". The ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) project seeks to mimic the way the sun produces energy, potentially providing an inexhaustible source of low-cost energy using seawater as fuel. It will create 1,000 research jobs and a further 3,000 jobs indirectly related to the project, which involves fusing rather than splitting atoms to release energy. Chirac praised France's nuclear energy programme as a "major asset". France has been a big producer of nuclear energy since the oil shocks of the 1970s and has 58 nuclear reactors, more than any country in the world except the United States. France beat off a rival bid from Japan to host the reactor. The ITER project is backed by China, the European Union, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. ------------------- Report: North Korea resumes building nuclear reactors TOKYO (AP) - North Korea has resumed the construction of two nuclear reactors suspended under a 1994 agreement with the United States, a Japanese newspaper reported Thursday. North Korea restarted building a 50,000-kilowatt reactor in Yongbyon and a 200,000-kilowatt reactor in Thaechon - both are plutonium- producing graphite-based - Japanese economic daily Nihon Keizai said, quoting unidentified U.S. government and other sources. Japan's Foreign Ministry said it couldn't confirm the report. North Korea had suspended the construction of the two reactors under the 1994 deal in exchange for energy aid and two light-water reactors that are less likely to be used in nuclear arms development. Pyongyang recently "indirectly" notified Washington that it has resumed the construction of the nuclear plants, the Nihon Keizai quoted the sources as saying. The resumption was also confirmed by spy satellites, the paper said. North Korea claimed in February it had nuclear weapons and has since made moves that would allow it to harvest more weapons-grade plutonium. North Korea also said through its official news media in May that it would be preparing to restart the construction. Kim Hong-je, a spokesman with South Korea's Unification Ministry, said some have said that the North claimed doing so in its broadcast several months ago, but the ministry can't confirm it. It is expected to take several years before the reactors are completed, and the U.S. government does not think the latest resumption of the construction immediately escalates nuclear threats from North Korea, the Nihon Keizai said. When completed, the two facilities will give North Korea a capability of nuclear weapons mass production, the paper said. -------------------- Report Of Hamaoka Nuclear Plant Disposal Unit Fire-Kyodo NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- A fire broke out at a facility of the Hamaoka nuclear power plant in Omaezaki, Shizuoka Prefecture, on Thursday night, but no radioactivity was released outside of the plant, the operator of the plant said Thursday, Kyodo News reported. The company said there were no injuries from the fire. The fire occurred at 9:10 p.m. in the second basement of a building constructed for disposal of waste materials, Chubu Electric Power Co. (9502.TO) said, Kyodo reported. -------------------- Smiths Detection Integrates Radioactive Material Detection With High- Energy Cargo X-ray Screening PINE BROOK, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)---- Smiths Detection's HCV x-ray inspection systems integrated with Radetect+ significantly accelerates screening by eliminating need for separate radioactive material screening Smiths Detection, the world's leading provider of trace detection and x-ray security screening equipment, introduces Radetect+, an automated radioactive material detector that can be integrated into the Company's HCV product line of fixed, relocatable and mobile high- energy x-ray screening systems. The Smiths Detection HCV x-ray systems are used at ports and borders and by customs authorities to non-intrusively screen fully-loaded trucks, containers and vehicles. The high-resolution images generated by these systems are used to assist in the identification of conventional explosives, weapons and contraband. While x-ray screening is a critical component to stopping contraband from entering the United States, it cannot automatically detect the presence of radioactive material, a key concern for customs and border authorities. "Traditionally, screening containers and vehicles at ports and borders for conventional threats and radioactive material is done in two separate steps," said Bret Bader, Vice President and General Manager Civil Business, Smiths Detection, North America. "The integration of Radetect+ into Smiths Detection's HCV cargo screening systems combines these two steps, significantly reducing the time required to effectively screen for multiple threats." With an HCV system that incorporates Radetect+, authorities can simultaneously and non-intrusively screen for explosives, contraband, weapons and nuclear material in one pass with one system. The x-ray image and radioactive material scan results are graphically displayed on the same monitor. In the event of a radioactive material detection, its approximate location in the container or vehicle is easily visible to the operator, allowing for quick identification in a manual vehicle search. Radetect + meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for evaluation and performance of radiation detection portal monitors for use in homeland security. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From daleboyce at charter.net Thu Jun 30 22:14:22 2005 From: daleboyce at charter.net (Dale Boyce) Date: Thu Jun 30 22:16:39 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! References: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A43B@sps13.aecl.ca> Message-ID: <00de01c57db0$4e823780$6400a8c0@TheGateway> This isn't quite correct, or rather it is incomplete. Proton-proton fusion is rate limited by the weak reaction since the strong force is insufficient to make He2 stable it must simultaneously beta(positron) decay to deuterium at the time the "fusion" occurs. However, all of the energy release in p-p fusion is from the strong force, and is equal to the binding energy of deuterium minus the energy that goes into the positron and the neutrino. You have to subtract the decay energy in this case because you have to "make" the positron and neutrino and the only energy source to do this is the released binding energy of the proton and the neutron that make the deuterium. It is believed that in the innermost part of the sun the carbon cycle dominates the energy production. However, outside that zone the p-p, p-d, and He3-He3 -> He4 +2p and so on dominates. I agree that in most fusion reactors or bombs we start with different fuel than in the reactions that take place in the sun. However, almost all of the energy produced is due to the strond interaction. Even at its very basis the energy from the weak force decays comes from the strong interaction. The energy in beta decay is due to the difference in the strong interaction between neighboring isobars. On the subject of radioactive waste from fusion reactors, one would expect it to be similar to that produced by low energy proton accelerators scaled by the relative power (input in the case of the accelerator, and output in the case of a fusion reactor). I say this because in low energy proton machines very few things actually see the protons as they get stopped very quickly in the machine components. You get 1 or 2 percent of the proton flux appearing as neutrons from the nuclear reactions that take place. So there is another fudge factor to consider in scaling from the accelerator side. Now from the fusion side. A lot of fusion reactions do not produce neutrons. What fuel is being used to produce the neutrons we are hearing about? Depending on the fuel, neutron yield could be very low. This leads to a fudge factor on the fusion reactor side of the equation. In fact producing neutrons is probably detrimental in a fusion reactor. It means you lose several MeV of the binding energy of the neutron in the reaction. We tend to think of neutrons being important from the weapons concept where the fusion fuel needs to produce high energy neutrons for a ternary device to work. Dale daleboyce@charter.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franta, Jaroslav" To: "Radsafe (E-mail)" Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! > >As a public issue, quantities are apparently irrelevant. >>So I don't see the difference between fusion >>and fission radioactive wastes as a public issue. >>This is a strange world we are dealing with! > ============= > > > Indeed ! > The public issue appears instead to be that ITER "seeks to mimic the way > the > sun produces energy," or "reproducing the sun's power source" (warm & > fuzzy > image), while NIF & other inertial confinement fusion schemes "simulate > fusion reactions that occur in hydrogen bombs" (horror!) -- and of course > fission reactors "split atoms, like A-bombs." > In fact, our fusion reactors are very much UNLIKE the sun, in both > operating > conditions and fuel type, fusion marketing propaganda notwithstanding. > > Fusion reactors and the Sun don't even operate on the same physical force, > and there aren't any D-D or D-T reactions in the Sun -- both accounting > for > the fact that the Sun burns for billions of years, instead of blowing up. > > The Sun *depends* on reactions using the weak nuclear force, while > reactors > & bombs use fuels that can be fused quickly & relatively easily using the > strong nuclear force only. > > In his seminal book "Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis," > Donald Clayton writes concerning p-p fusion that the weak nuclear > interaction is so exceedingly rare, that the deuterium (D) that has been > formed never actually encounters another D. > As Clayton explains, "after the deuterium has been formed [in the p-p > fusion], one could imagine that He-4 might be produced by the reaction D + > D > --> He-4 + u. > This reaction, however, suffers from..... the fact that the deuterium > abundance is kept very small by its interaction with protons [in the > reaction D + p --> He-3 + u, following which the helium nuclei fuse > according to He-3 + He-3 --> He-4 + p + p ]. > .....That these are the major reactions comes about because..... D can > build > up only to a very small abundance." [ie. two Ds never bump into each other > in the sea of protons....] > > According to > http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/N-Q/phys/people/vdhillon/teaching/phy213/ > phy213_fusion3.html , "This [p-p] reaction occurs via the weak nuclear > force > and the average proton in the Sun will undergo such a reaction > approximately > once in the lifetime of the Sun, i.e. once every 10 billion years" (the > sun's life) ...this in spite of the fact that the protons undergo > approximately 10 billion collisions per second with other protons in the > solar interior. > > > Jaro > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE > > This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that > is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. > Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, > dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information > may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. > > AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E > > Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de > l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits > d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, > divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations > non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e > envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From daleboyce at charter.net Thu Jun 30 22:36:22 2005 From: daleboyce at charter.net (Dale Boyce) Date: Thu Jun 30 22:39:04 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! References: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A43B@sps13.aecl.ca> <00de01c57db0$4e823780$6400a8c0@TheGateway> Message-ID: <011601c57db3$6cd69f70$6400a8c0@TheGateway> Oh I forgot to add. The common neutron activation activities in proton accelerators are mostly relatively small amounts of the various Co isotopes.produced from neutron capture in iron, and the p,n reaction in nickel. A little Be7 shows up in the cooling water. If you either wait long enough, or take away the machine you'll eventually have small amounts of a couple of europium isotopes in the concrete shielding. Dale daleboyce@charter.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dale Boyce" To: "Radsafe (E-mail)" Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! > This isn't quite correct, or rather it is incomplete. Proton-proton fusion > is rate limited by the weak reaction since the strong force is > insufficient to make He2 stable it must simultaneously beta(positron) > decay to deuterium at the time the "fusion" occurs. However, all of the > energy release in p-p fusion is from the strong force, and is equal to the > binding energy of deuterium minus the energy that goes into the positron > and the neutrino. You have to subtract the decay energy in this case > because you have to "make" the positron and neutrino and the only energy > source to do this is the released binding energy of the proton and the > neutron that make the deuterium. > > It is believed that in the innermost part of the sun the carbon cycle > dominates the energy production. However, outside that zone the p-p, p-d, > and He3-He3 -> He4 +2p and so on dominates. > > I agree that in most fusion reactors or bombs we start with different fuel > than in the reactions that take place in the sun. However, almost all of > the energy produced is due to the strond interaction. Even at its very > basis the energy from the weak force decays comes from the strong > interaction. The energy in beta decay is due to the difference in the > strong interaction between neighboring isobars. > > On the subject of radioactive waste from fusion reactors, one would expect > it to be similar to that produced by low energy proton accelerators scaled > by the relative power (input in the case of the accelerator, and output in > the case of a fusion reactor). I say this because in low energy proton > machines very few things actually see the protons as they get stopped very > quickly in the machine components. You get 1 or 2 percent of the proton > flux appearing as neutrons from the nuclear reactions that take place. So > there is another fudge factor to consider in scaling from the accelerator > side. > > Now from the fusion side. A lot of fusion reactions do not produce > neutrons. What fuel is being used to produce the neutrons we are hearing > about? Depending on the fuel, neutron yield could be very low. This leads > to a fudge factor on the fusion reactor side of the equation. In fact > producing neutrons is probably detrimental in a fusion reactor. It means > you lose several MeV of the binding energy of the neutron in the reaction. > > We tend to think of neutrons being important from the weapons concept > where the fusion fuel needs to produce high energy neutrons for a ternary > device to work. > > Dale > > daleboyce@charter.net > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Franta, Jaroslav" > To: "Radsafe (E-mail)" > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:22 AM > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony! > > >> >As a public issue, quantities are apparently irrelevant. >>>So I don't see the difference between fusion >>>and fission radioactive wastes as a public issue. >>>This is a strange world we are dealing with! >> ============= >> >> >> Indeed ! >> The public issue appears instead to be that ITER "seeks to mimic the way >> the >> sun produces energy," or "reproducing the sun's power source" (warm & >> fuzzy >> image), while NIF & other inertial confinement fusion schemes "simulate >> fusion reactions that occur in hydrogen bombs" (horror!) -- and of course >> fission reactors "split atoms, like A-bombs." >> In fact, our fusion reactors are very much UNLIKE the sun, in both >> operating >> conditions and fuel type, fusion marketing propaganda notwithstanding. >> >> Fusion reactors and the Sun don't even operate on the same physical >> force, >> and there aren't any D-D or D-T reactions in the Sun -- both accounting >> for >> the fact that the Sun burns for billions of years, instead of blowing up. >> >> The Sun *depends* on reactions using the weak nuclear force, while >> reactors >> & bombs use fuels that can be fused quickly & relatively easily using the >> strong nuclear force only. >> >> In his seminal book "Principles of Stellar Evolution and >> Nucleosynthesis," >> Donald Clayton writes concerning p-p fusion that the weak nuclear >> interaction is so exceedingly rare, that the deuterium (D) that has been >> formed never actually encounters another D. >> As Clayton explains, "after the deuterium has been formed [in the p-p >> fusion], one could imagine that He-4 might be produced by the reaction D >> + D >> --> He-4 + u. >> This reaction, however, suffers from..... the fact that the deuterium >> abundance is kept very small by its interaction with protons [in the >> reaction D + p --> He-3 + u, following which the helium nuclei fuse >> according to He-3 + He-3 --> He-4 + p + p ]. >> .....That these are the major reactions comes about because..... D can >> build >> up only to a very small abundance." [ie. two Ds never bump into each >> other >> in the sea of protons....] >> >> According to >> http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/N-Q/phys/people/vdhillon/teaching/phy213/ >> phy213_fusion3.html , "This [p-p] reaction occurs via the weak nuclear >> force >> and the average proton in the Sun will undergo such a reaction >> approximately >> once in the lifetime of the Sun, i.e. once every 10 billion years" (the >> sun's life) ...this in spite of the fact that the protons undergo >> approximately 10 billion collisions per second with other protons in the >> solar interior. >> >> >> Jaro >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE >> >> This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that >> is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. >> Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, >> dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information >> may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. >> >> AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E >> >> Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de >> l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits >> d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, >> divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations >> non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e >> envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. >> _______________________________________________ >> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list >> radsafe@radlab.nl >> >> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood >> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: >> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html >> >> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings >> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ >> > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From joey-michael at uiowa.edu Thu Jun 30 22:42:05 2005 From: joey-michael at uiowa.edu (Michael, Joey L) Date: Thu Jun 30 22:42:15 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII Message-ID: <4F5CA8D7D1561B45A128D35DB86BA8F874BDC1@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> Just curious. What is the official number for background? It seems to me that there has to be a threshold (the threshold is the value of background). Realisticly I know it is a range and depends on your location etc. So within the range of background for various locations, it seems that LNT would have to fall apart. Here is my example. A group of 10,000 people live in Town X with a background of 3.6 mSv/yr. They live ther for 1/2 yr. They all move to Town Y which has bkg = 7.2 mSv/yr. They are exposed to an average bkg = 5.4 mSv for the year. Now, since 5.4 mSv is > 3.6 mSv/yr of Town X (1.8 mSv difference), is there an additional risk of cancer (1 in 5556) or is the risk = 0 because they were exposed to It's both amusing and sad to see all you folks besmirching the credibility of some of the top radiobiologists and epidemiologists in the world because you simply don't agree with their conclusions. Sounds an awful lot like the anti-nuclear movement. Moreover, you're reading way more doom and gloom into the report than is probably there. I say "probably" because I haven't read the report and haven't even finished the entire summary. But before decrying the "HP-conspiracy" and claiming the result was rigged simply by panel composition, first evaluate what the report says: * Epidemiology shows a small increase in risk associated with low levels of ionizing radiation. * Molecular studies support the concept that radiation effects are not necessarily the same as metabolic processes and therefore, support the idea that a risk may be present at low levels. * Cellular studies show that effects may not be limited to the directly irradiated cell and damage may persist in successive generations. None of these conclusions are new and the risk factors haven't changed. And we don't have to evacuate Colorado. Most of us in the radiation safety community should be happy that the risk levels fall in line with the existing regulatory framework and therefore support the continued use of nuclear technologies. If you hoped for a few rem a year threshold, then you've been living on a different planet and ignoring most of the real radiation science of the past few decades. There are tons more studies that support the concept of low level radiation effects on molecules, cells, and organisms than there are the support stimulation of the immune system or whatever else is hypothesized for hormesis. I've attempted lab experiments on hormesis myself (plants) and I can tell you that anything so dependent on statistics is fraught with difficulty. I attended one of the first meetings of the BEIR VII panel when it was formed a number of years ago. The anti-nuclear activists were in force railing about the composition of the panel and their support from the "nuclear industry." The industry according to them is anyone who receives financial support from government as well as utilities, universities.... So it is quite amusing to hear folks today asking - just how did they form that panel of conspirators? Signed, a present and former conspirator (radiobiology researcher, health physicist, educator). Hope for a future conspiracy too. Eric M. Goldin, Ph.D., CHP From daleboyce at charter.net Thu Jun 30 23:41:29 2005 From: daleboyce at charter.net (Dale Boyce) Date: Thu Jun 30 23:44:21 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII References: <4F5CA8D7D1561B45A128D35DB86BA8F874BDC1@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> Message-ID: <012d01c57dbc$7980e060$6400a8c0@TheGateway> Hi all, I periodically like to point out when discussions like these arise that if you take American Cancer Society data on cancer death rates by state and plot them versus the mean altitude of the state there is a strong anti-correlation. That is the higher you live (and therefore the higher your probable background exposure) the lower your risk of dying of cancer. This is not an argument for or against hormesis. Just that if low level exposure is harmful, it is much less so than the other differences between the high and low states, such as heavy industry and air pollution tend to be more common at lower altitudes because of accessibility to heavy transport methods. It also show that the death rates vary by +/-20 state to state from the national mean. How can someone say with a straight face that 100 mSv causes an increase of 1% in cancer? Another thing that I like to throw in every once in awhile is that the linear model was developed from high dose data. (I never get any takers on answering this one) At high doses RBE's and Quality Factors do not apply. The average dose to an individual cell is the same whether from a 100 rads (1 gray) of photons or for example neutrons. Therefore, if we take the linear model to low dose it should only work for high LET radiation. Where an individual cell receives a similar dose as at high dose. Just a much smaller fraction of the cells are exposed. These last two sentences are fundamental to the LNT hypothesis. So for low LET radiation I would argue that the LNT model should fail because both the average cellular dose, and the fraction of cells exposed is smaller (once you reach a small enough dose). To me this would indicate that (IF the LNT model is correct for high LET radiation) then the dose response at low dose should go as something like the square of the low LET dose. I usually say it in a different way. At low dose of low LET radiation you should divide the LNT by the RBE/QF's of high LET radiation. This also points to another problem with the LNT model. Since we don't use the QF's at high dose what unit is the LNT linear in? In an offline discussion awhile back with another RADSAFER we were discussing this last point about not using QF's at high dose. It makes sense from a microdosimetry standpoint, and seems to be a fairly commonly held view. However, neither of us could find a reference to support this. Anyone know? Another question. At 40 years post Hiroshima/Nagasaki the excess cancer deaths in those populations was something like 250 out of a cohort of 80,000 or so. Does anyone have the most current figure? dale daleboyce@charter.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael, Joey L" To: Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 3:42 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII > > Just curious. What is the official number for background? It seems to > me that there has to be a threshold (the threshold is the value of > background). Realisticly I know it is a range and depends on your > location etc. So within the range of background for various locations, > it seems that LNT would have to fall apart. > > Here is my example. A group of 10,000 people live in Town X with a > background of 3.6 mSv/yr. They live ther for 1/2 yr. They all move to > Town Y which has bkg = 7.2 mSv/yr. They are exposed to an average bkg = > 5.4 mSv for the year. Now, since 5.4 mSv is > 3.6 mSv/yr of Town X > (1.8 mSv difference), is there an additional risk of cancer (1 in 5556) > or is the risk = 0 because they were exposed to > It seems like the risk changes by moving to a different town, and is not > consistant with the amount of exposure. > > Thanks for indulging me, > > Joey Michael > Health Physicist Assistant > University of Iowa > Health Protection Office > 335-8501 > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe@radlab.nl > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > From daitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Thu Jun 30 23:48:51 2005 From: daitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Thu Jun 30 23:49:36 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII In-Reply-To: <4F5CA8D7D1561B45A128D35DB86BA8F874BDC1@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiow a.edu> References: <4F5CA8D7D1561B45A128D35DB86BA8F874BDC1@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20050630164428.02ba9d40@pop.nam.slb.com> At 03:42 PM 6/30/2005, Michael, Joey L wrote: > >Just curious. What is the official number for background? It seems to >me that there has to be a threshold (the threshold is the value of >background). Realisticly I know it is a range and depends on your >location etc. So within the range of background for various locations, >it seems that LNT would have to fall apart. When talking about this interesting topic, I like to use some of the information from: http://ns.taishitsu.or.jp/radiation/index-e.html Funny that those deluded souls lying on the beach in Brazil or in the pools in Ramsar are believing in the benefits, when they are "in fact" killing themselves......... Regards Doug Doug Aitken Schlumberger D&M QHSE Advisor Office (rarely!) 281-285-8009 Home (better!) 713-797-0919 Cell (best?) 713-562-8585 From sandyfl at earthlink.net Thu Jun 30 23:49:43 2005 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu Jun 30 23:51:38 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <42C40687.26484.1B5344C@localhost> Eric, Amen! Perhaps a paradigm shift! ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1902 E-Mail: sperle@dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From pmuldoon at arc.nasa.gov Thu Jun 30 19:44:23 2005 From: pmuldoon at arc.nasa.gov (Patrick Muldoon) Date: Fri Jul 1 10:43:42 2005 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HEPA Filters In-Reply-To: <200506292323.j5TND6pG010740@radlab.nl> References: <200506292323.j5TND6pG010740@radlab.nl> Message-ID: Thank you Peter for telling the world "we should know better" at NASA Ames. Truth is, we do. Most of the HEPA filters are legacy filters that were installed years ago - maybe, maybe not for radiological purposes. While I am not currently serving as RSO, when I was the Radiation Safety Committee was informed that there was no requirement for HEPA filters for the work they were doing. I'm sure Berkeley knows better as well and has their own reasons for having HEPA filters. I wish you luck tracking down the requirement. I'm guessing it comes from some worse case scenarios where powders or dusts may be generated. Patrick Muldoon, CHP