[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RADSAFE digest 533
Have you tried "man mail"? <*SNICKER*>
Try mail -u root
:-) :-)
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 15:52:36 -0500
Errors-To: melissa@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Originator: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: RADSAFE digest 533
X-Listserver-Version: 6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Radiation Safety Distribution List
Contents:
RE: More Funky Stuff From Landauer in March ("Dale E. Boyce"
<dale@radpro.uchicago.edu>)
ring badges in drawer ("Robert R. Milwicz"
<MILWICZ%PUCC.bitnet@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>)
Re: RE: More Funky Stuff From Landauer in March (tdc@ehssun.lbl.gov (Ted M. de
Castro))
Re: x-rays, IRB, rad-safty, consents, r (a.zapantis@qut.edu.au (Alex Zapantis))
RE: More Funky Stuff From Landauer in March (webber@micf.nist.gov (W.R.Webber))
New NRC committee members ("Potter, Charles" <CAPOTTE@saix367.sandia.gov>)
Re: New NRC committee members ("Ron L. Kathren"
<rkathren@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>)
Re: New NRC committee members (Bqltd@aol.com)
Re: New NRC committee members (Rich Oesterling <ogr@inel.gov>)
Exit Eye Exams for Laser Operators (Dan Zurosky
<D020272@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU>)
Re: New NRC committee members (Bqltd@aol.com)
Re: ring badges in drawer (LENTZC <LENTZC@aa.wl.com>)
Re: Squamous Cell Cancer (vvinh@vub.vub.ac.be (Vincent Vinh-Hung))
Re: Exit Eye Exams for Laser Operators (Donald Haes
<HAES%MITVMA.bitnet@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>)
NRC nominations (don@radpro.uchicago.edu)
Termination Physicals ("John E. Aperans" <JAPERANS@wsmr-emh81.army.mil>)
Re: Exit Eye Exams for Laser Operators (don@radpro.uchicago.edu)
Re: Exit Eye Exams for Laser Operators (tdc@ehssun.lbl.gov (Ted M. de Castro))
Radium concentration in potable water (avest@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Albert
Lee Vest))
Re: x-rays, IRB, etc. (psr@po.CWRU.Edu (P S. Rao))
Re: New NRC committee members ("Ron L. Kathren"
<rkathren@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>)
Re: New NRC committee members ("Wesley M. Dunn"
<WDUNN@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us>)
Re: Exit Eye Exams for Laser Operators (Dan Zurosky
<D020272@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU>)
Radiation Questions (Bruce Busby <bbusby@umich.edu>)
Re: New NRC committee members (avrel@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Erick Lindstrom))
RE: x-rays, IRB, etc. ("Barry Siegel" <siegelb@mirlink.wustl.edu>)
Re: x-rays, IRB, etc. (JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com)
Re: Ward Valley "fill-the-blanks" (JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com)
Re: New NRC committee members (JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com)
Re: Ward Valley "fill-the-blanks" (JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 May 95 16:03:13 CDT
From: "Dale E. Boyce" <dale@radpro.uchicago.edu>
Subject: RE: More Funky Stuff From Landauer in March
Call me a dinosaur, but the chance for strange readins on a
dosimeter is what has stopped us from going over to TLDs.
You can always have someone look at a strip of film to
see if it appears that something is funky. One gets
less info about directionality and/or contamination
from TLDs, and you lose the sharp absorber pattern
indicating a one shot exposure in a fixed geometry
that would show that either the person got it from an
xray or that they were not wearing it when it was exposed.
Dale Boyce
dale@radpro.uchicago.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 May 95 17:19:24 EDT
From: "Robert R. Milwicz" <MILWICZ%PUCC.bitnet@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: ring badges in drawer
Ring badge in a drawer! To Carol Lentz. I suggest you carefuly survey the drawe
r. I had a strange reading on a badge the person said was in the drawer all mon
th. The survey found his Ra-226 wrist watch which he kept in the drawer had bee
n moved and spent the monitoring period next to his badge.This was confirmed wi
th a test. Look for objects that might be radioactive such as optical lens with
Th, a watch with Ra-226 or some object like a compass. I have about 25 years o
f experience in tracking down strange Landauer readings and some of them are re
al like the badge near the watch. Some come from heat causing density changes o
n the film and these appear as high energy gamma reading. Some are badges left
on during medical exams. My solution to the problem has been to visit the area
in which the person works and survey. Let me know if you find anything.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 15:03:03
From: tdc@ehssun.lbl.gov (Ted M. de Castro)
Subject: Re: RE: More Funky Stuff From Landauer in March
>>Call me a dinosaur, but the chance for strange readins on a
>>dosimeter is what has stopped us from going over to TLDs.
>>You can always have someone look at a strip of film to
>>see if it appears that something is funky. One gets
>>less info about directionality and/or contamination
>>from TLDs, and you lose the sharp absorber pattern
>>indicating a one shot exposure in a fixed geometry
>>that would show that either the person got it from an
>>xray or that they were not wearing it when it was exposed.
You're not the only dinosaur!!
While TLD might be nice for bean counters and you can NEVER be challenged on
the reading - I still agree with all your points re film!
I bemoan the day we switched to TLD. I do understand it is nice to have
something with a flat energy response (giving up the ENHANCED sensitivity to
low energy x-ray) - so to my mind the ideal dosimeter would be TLD WITH FILM
- and don't develop the film unless there is a TLD reading and then process
it with an automatic processor since you are only looking for image data and
not dosimetery data.
BTW - you left off one other thing that film was very good for that TLD
won't do ..... finding a lab with sloppy handling practices from those
"little spots on the film".
It was also easier to weed out non-occupational exposure from airport x-rays
to - the images of staples or bobby pins was always a dead giveaway!!
And then there is the person that takes a badge to a dentist office to
"spike" it to get attention - the clear ultra sharp image on film was
another clear indication!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 08:49:19 +1000
From: a.zapantis@qut.edu.au (Alex Zapantis)
Subject: Re: x-rays, IRB, rad-safty, consents, r
>Wasn't thinking of different individuals/masses. Is the total imparted energy
>to a larger individual due to a larger mass at the same rad/rem dose really a
>higher risk? Would not seem obvious.
>
Should we not base risk estimates on effective dose? (I do!!) And if so,
doesn't effective dose take into account ALL factors, ie organs (or portions
of organs) irradiated, RBE of the radiation (I suppose I should say
radiation weighting factor). Thus is it not correct to state that the risk
accepted by individuals of differing masses who have received the same
equivalent dose to the same portions of the same organs (ie have received
the same effective dose) is identical, even though more energy would have
been imparted to the larger individual?
When communicating risk to the lay person for small doses, is it not best to
use the simple 500 per million per 10mSv (effective dose) risk factor for
all cancers as stated in ICRP60 and then compare the risk thus calculated to
the risk of dying by more familiar means eg car accident or smoking 20
cigarettes per day?
Given the large uncertainties generally inherent in radiation protection, I
believe that we should not be too concerned with attempting to calculate
doses or risks to 4 significant figures. At risk of being labelled
superficial, I firmly believe that simple is best (wherever possible).
Alex Zapantis
Radiation Safety Officer
Queensland University of Technology
Health & Safety Section
Locked Bag No.2
Red Hill Qld 4059
AUSTRALIA
Ph : 61 7 864 3566
fax : 61 7 864 3993
email : a.zapantis@qut.edu.au
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 May 95 18:58:11 -0500
From: webber@micf.nist.gov (W.R.Webber)
Subject: RE: More Funky Stuff From Landauer in March
Now that there is talk of moving from TLDs to electronic dosimeters (with
TLD backup), maybe a better choice would be film as the backup device.
>Call me a dinosaur, but the chance for strange readins on a
>dosimeter is what has stopped us from going over to TLDs.
>You can always have someone look at a strip of film to
>see if it appears that something is funky. One gets
>less info about directionality and/or contamination
>from TLDs, and you lose the sharp absorber pattern
>indicating a one shot exposure in a fixed geometry
>that would show that either the person got it from an
>xray or that they were not wearing it when it was exposed.
>
>Dale Boyce
>dale@radpro.uchicago.edu
>
William R. Webber, Health Physicist ( Warp Factor OS/2)
The opions expressed above are those of the author alone and do not
represent those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology nor
the US Department of Commerce.
____________________________________________
CAUTION SNOW ANGEL AREA - play MSTy for me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 May 95 16:05:00 mst
From: "Potter, Charles" <CAPOTTE@saix367.sandia.gov>
Subject: New NRC committee members
The following information has recently been made available:
The administration has drafted a list of candidates for the
five-member Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which will have only two
confirmed members as of July 1. The list includes Cas Robinson, head
of a national coalition on high-level nuclear waste for the Nuclear
Energy Institute; Ray Durante, US program director for Atomic Energy
of Canada Ltd.'s CANDUS-3 nuclear reactor program; Mark Shaffer, aide
to Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner Vicky Bailey; Greta Dicus,
member of the Arkansas Department of Health; and Dan Berkovitz,
democratic staffer with the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee.
----------
It seems to me that the HPS and/or any other group with a vested
interest in NRC philosophy should take an active interest in these
procedings, since a majority of the committee will be changed.
Gus Potter
Sandia National Laboratories
CAPOTTE@sandia.gov
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 21:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Ron L. Kathren" <rkathren@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: New NRC committee members
Gus --
I wholeheartedly agree. However, it is virtually impossible to gain the
ear of the powers that be in Washington -- the HPS has little political
clout (or at least such was the case when I was President). A number of
us tried to get Ted Webster appointed a few years back, without success.
Perhaps we could focus on a single candidate, and as individuals as well
as as a body push hard via letters etc. to have a radiation safety
professional (ie health physicist) appointed. If so, I stand ready to
write letters, contactmy congressmen, or do whatever to get a suitable HP
appointed.
Ron Kathren
On Mon, 22 May 1995, Potter, Charles wrote:
> The following information has recently been made available:
>
> The administration has drafted a list of candidates for the
> five-member Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which will have only two
> confirmed members as of July 1. The list includes Cas Robinson, head
> of a national coalition on high-level nuclear waste for the Nuclear
> Energy Institute; Ray Durante, US program director for Atomic Energy
> of Canada Ltd.'s CANDUS-3 nuclear reactor program; Mark Shaffer, aide
> to Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner Vicky Bailey; Greta Dicus,
> member of the Arkansas Department of Health; and Dan Berkovitz,
> democratic staffer with the Senate Environment and Public Works
> Committee.
>
> ----------
>
> It seems to me that the HPS and/or any other group with a vested
> interest in NRC philosophy should take an active interest in these
> procedings, since a majority of the committee will be changed.
>
> Gus Potter
> Sandia National Laboratories
> CAPOTTE@sandia.gov
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 08:09:54 -0400
From: Bqltd@aol.com
Subject: Re: New NRC committee members
Charles:
Thanks for your posting re NRC.
The HPS, over the signature of the president, has written a letter of
endorsement to the White House for Greta Dicus, an HPS member. In addition
we have also communicated our views about Greta specifically, and a health
physicists generally to a number of Hill and Administration individuals.
If anyone wishes to send a letter on the matter it should be addressed to:
Mr. Bob Nash
Director of Presidential Personnel
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Thanks again.
John W. Billett, APR
HPS Director, Public Affairs
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 07:35:38 -0600 (MDT)
From: Rich Oesterling <ogr@inel.gov>
Subject: Re: New NRC committee members
So who is Greta Dicus, other than another Arkansan? She's not
listed in the CHP list. (Sorry, folks, that's my *minimum*
qualification requirement.:-) )
Let's see a resume if she purportedly represents the HPS.
****************************************************************
* Rich Oesterling, CHP ogr@twinpeak.inel.gov *
* "What opinions? I'm not permitted to have any." *
* Get Really Warped - Get Unix *
****************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 09:32:42 EDT
From: Dan Zurosky <D020272@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU>
Subject: Exit Eye Exams for Laser Operators
Our radiation safety committee recently recommended that laser operators be
given eye exams at the beginning of their employment and at the time of
employment termination. We seem to be having a problem in developing an
effective method for ensuring that our employees receive the final eye exam
before they run out the door. Our personnel director indicated a
willingness to work with us in developing a system to ensure that this
eye exam requirement is satisfied. We are also hoping that the same system
could be used for ensuring that additional monitoring requirements and
other "loose ends" are completed before the employee leaves the university.
I was asked by our personnel director to contact other institutions to see
how this problem is handled. I would appreciate any thoughts radsafers may
have concerning this matter.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 10:21:34 -0400
From: Bqltd@aol.com
Subject: Re: New NRC committee members
Re: New members
The info about whom to write to is listed as an intended service to all out
there who may have a candidate or want to write about another appointment
(NRC or not).
HPS does not have an official list of candidates or a single candidate. The
purpose is to strive to have a health physicist appointed.
Thanks
John
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 10:48:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: LENTZC <LENTZC@aa.wl.com>
Subject: Re: ring badges in drawer
>Ring badge in a drawer! To Carol Lentz. I suggest you carefuly survey the
drawer....My solution to the problem has been to visit the area in which the
person works and survey. Let me know if you find anything.
All good suggestions, the problem is the person's body badge was right next to
the ring and showed no exposure!!
Carol
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 16:52:41 +0200
From: vvinh@vub.vub.ac.be (Vincent Vinh-Hung)
Subject: Re: Squamous Cell Cancer
Hello, about question what radiation therapy for sub-surface
squamous cell cancer in the neck region tumor golf ball size
next to carotid artery, requires discussion.
I assume it is the most frequent situation encountered, which
from the description seems to be compatible with neck node
metastase, the primary of which may be unknown, or may be
found in the pharynx-
larynx area, the lung, etc.
Assuming that other treatments were ruled out (e.g. radical
surgery), most commonly used radiation treatment modality for
such tumour localization is external irradiation by
photon (cobalt, linear accelrator
low energy, say 6 or 8 MeV, depending on facilities available).
Sometimes interstitial brachytherapy. Heavy particles and
pencil beam electrons are described but not in common use.
The choice of type radiation and fields setup is dependent
on the selection of target area (which is clinical choice).
It would for example be the node itself, with a margin of at
least 1 to 2 cm, so for a golf ball size tumor it would be
a volume of 6-8 cm diameter ("involved site" irradiation),
or the target may be the node plus adjacent areas at risk of
immediate spreading ("regional" irradiation), or the target
may be the whole side of the neck inclusive of the primary
if the primary is throat ("loco-regional" irradiation).
The target is subject to constraints, e.g. sparing priorities
spinal cord.
To summarize, note of caution about answering what type of
radiation therapy, the type is secondary to answers to other
questions: what is the indication of radiation therapy in that
case, is the indication integrated or not with plan of
management of that cancer (e.g. combined chemo surgery or not),
what is the target area, what is the dose to be delivered,
what is the area to be spared, what is the area which should not
be spared.
Regards,
Vincent Vinh-Hung
Radiotherapy
P.S. I did not discuss point that 'type of radiation' is not
synonymous 'type of radiation therapy', which also covers
other treatment modalities, like use of 2-D or 3-D radiation
treatment planning, dynamic or static radiotherapy, standard
or conformational radiotherapy.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 10:44:48 EDT
From: Donald Haes <HAES%MITVMA.bitnet@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Exit Eye Exams for Laser Operators
Speaking of eye exams, what types of exams are being done? Visual acuity
as in ANSI Z136.1-1993 6.3.1 for all? Or do you go through occular history,
macular function, color vision, and full ocular fundus examinations with
opthalmoscope when those previously mentioned tests are not normal? What
can a visual acuity test tell us about the possibility of a "hit" from a
previous laser incident that did not affect vision, but shows up during
an exit exam with retinal scan? Should we have retinal photos for all laser
workers?
In response to your question, try flagging the exam as part of check-out;
prohibiting the release of final pay check, transcripts, grades, etc. Or, hold
someone in authority responsible for their workers, keeping yourselves out of t
the loop.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 9:54:35 CDT
From: don@radpro.uchicago.edu
Subject: NRC nominations
The Senate concluded hearings on Dan M. Berkovitz on Feb 16, 1995. I could
find no further indication of any action on this nomination in the Cong. Rec.
This is somewhat surprising, since Shirley Ann Jackson, whose confirmation
was considered at the same time, was confirmed on April 6, 1995.
I found no indication in this years Cong. Rec. that any of the other
names have been submitted to the Senate.
___________________________________________________________________
Don Jordan Tel. (312) 702-6299
Office of Radiation Safety Fax 702-4008
The University of Chicago email: don@radpro.uchicago.edu
1101 East 57th Street, Room 11
Chicago, Illinois 60637
-- Any opinions are the author's --
------------------------------
Date: 23 May 95 08:55:00 MST
From: "John E. Aperans" <JAPERANS@wsmr-emh81.army.mil>
Subject: Termination Physicals
Dan Zurosky said "Our radiation safety committee recently recommended
that laser operators be given eye exams at the beginning of their
employment and at the time of employment termination. We seem to be
having a problem in developing an effective method for ensuring that
our employees receive the final eye exam before they run out the door."
I don't know if you can make this work in your organization, but we in
the military have a "clearing" worksheet that we must complete before
departing the unit. If someone requires a radiation physical
or other tests before departing, they must go to the clinic, get tested,
and then get the initials of the doctor. THEN, they come to us for the
initials of the RPO. Our Personnel Service Center will not let them
leave until all required areas have been cleared.
Of course, this does require the cooperation of personnel management.
Standard Disclaimer: These are my opinions alone, and do not reflect
the official views of the US Army or the US Government.
***************************************************
* JOHN E. APERANS, RRPT *
* Directorate for Applied Technology, Test and *
* Simulation (DATTS) *
* US Army White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002 *
* ATTN: Health Physics *
* FAX: (505) 678-7410 VOICE: (505) 678-2064 *
* e-mail: japerans@wsmr-emh81.army.mil *
***************************************************
The chicken HAD to come first. An egg would have been
fried and eaten.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 10:35:02 CDT
From: don@radpro.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Exit Eye Exams for Laser Operators
Holding up a final paycheck should probably be cleared through the legal
department to ensure compliance with state & federal laws, regulations &
court decisions. If you are concerned about the safety of the personnel,
why not require annual eye exams. These might reveal problems in time to
persue corrective action, especially glaucoma that (I've heard) can arise
from exposure to stray UV. Many laser injuries can occur in nanoseconds,
but this type can accumulate slowly.
___________________________________________________________________
Don Jordan Tel. (312) 702-6299
Office of Radiation Safety Fax 702-4008
The University of Chicago email: don@radpro.uchicago.edu
1101 East 57th Street, Room 11
Chicago, Illinois 60637
-- Any opinions are the author's --
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 08:49:21
From: tdc@ehssun.lbl.gov (Ted M. de Castro)
Subject: Re: Exit Eye Exams for Laser Operators
>> We seem to be having a problem in developing an
>>effective method for ensuring that our employees receive the final eye
>>exam before they run out the door.
Many places simply hold the final pay check! VERY effective.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 13:25:34 -0400
From: avest@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Albert Lee Vest)
Subject: Radium concentration in potable water
Paul, Jim, etc.
After your spirited discussion of RADITHOR, I thought you'd enjoy hearing
about this.
My wife and I are planning a trip to Saratoga Springs, NY this fall, so
she's borrowed some Fodor's guides, etc. from the library. Apparently
"springs" of water, for bathing and drinking, are among the main attractions
there.
According to one of the books, there's a (one, unique apparently) spring
that has such a high radium content that there's a sign on it, not
*condemning* it (isn't *that* refreshing?), but advising people to drink
from it not more than once per week!
You know how sketchy these popular travel books are. Do any of you know
what exactly is the concentration in that spring, and/or in the other
springs in the Saratoga region? Does the "one drink per week" come from New
York State regulations, or federal, or just the proprietor's conservative
judgment?
Albert Lee Vest The Ohio State University
Health Physicist B-042 Graves Hall
(614)292-0122 333 West 10th Avenue
"Action brings good fortune" - Syd Barrett
"Rock n roll" - John Goodman Columbus OH 43210
My employer did not review or approve this message.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 14:18:28 -0400
From: psr@po.CWRU.Edu (P S. Rao)
Subject: Re: x-rays, IRB, etc.
In our institution the Radiation Safety Committee (RSC) also wears a
Radioactive Drug Research Committee (RDRC) hat. Investigative studies
involving x-rays are reviewed by the RSC/RDRC on their way to the
Institutional Review Board(IRB). As far as possible, the same standards
are used as those required of studies that involve only radioisotopes, ie,
spelt out in 21 CFR 361.1. The idea is to have a single set of standards
for all uses of ionizing radiation.
While on the subject, I have a question for Radsafers in a similar
situation: How is the patient consent form worded to explain to lay
persons what the risks of radiation are? I have discouraged the use of
passages like "... equivalent to 10 chest x-rays ...", and promoted
somewhat more honest comparisons to GI series, CT scans, etc., but have yet
to come with a wording that satisfies all the IRB committee members.
Reply by private e-mail is as welcome as postings on radsafe. Thanks in
advance.
--
P. Sridhar Rao, Radiology, CWRU / Univ Hosp of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio.
Tel: 216-844-1295. Fax: 216-844-5922. E-mail: psr@po.cwru.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 11:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Ron L. Kathren" <rkathren@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: New NRC committee members
Who the devil is Greta Dicus and what are her qualifications other than
being from Arkansas? Perhaps you could share some information about her
with those of us -- Society members and others -- on the net.
Many thanx.
Ron Kathren
On Tue, 23 May 1995 Bqltd@aol.com wrote:
> Charles:
>
> Thanks for your posting re NRC.
>
> The HPS, over the signature of the president, has written a letter of
> endorsement to the White House for Greta Dicus, an HPS member. In addition
> we have also communicated our views about Greta specifically, and a health
> physicists generally to a number of Hill and Administration individuals.
>
> If anyone wishes to send a letter on the matter it should be addressed to:
>
> Mr. Bob Nash
> Director of Presidential Personnel
> The White House
> Washington, DC 20500
>
> Thanks again.
>
> John W. Billett, APR
> HPS Director, Public Affairs
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: 23 May 95 13:42:50 -0600 (CST)
From: "Wesley M. Dunn" <WDUNN@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us>
Subject: Re: New NRC committee members
Greta Dicus is the Director of the Division of Radiation Control and
Emergency Management, Department of Health, for Arkansas. This is
the state program for the control of radiation in Arkansas.
Wes
> Date: Tue, 23 May 95 13:28:22 -0500
> From: "Ron L. Kathren" <rkathren@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
> Subject: Re: New NRC committee members
>
> Who the devil is Greta Dicus and what are her qualifications other than
> being from Arkansas? Perhaps you could share some information about her
> with those of us -- Society members and others -- on the net.
*********************************************
NOTE: Due to changes in the world and the way
things are, my email address has changed to:
wdunn@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us
*********************************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 14:59:45 EDT
From: Dan Zurosky <D020272@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Exit Eye Exams for Laser Operators
Don, we met with our occupational health group and it was decided that full
opthalamic exams would be the best route to go. However, they changed
their minds and have now decided to offer a visual acuity test which I am
told is useless in determining eye damage from laser radiation. They are
also planning to give each operator an Amsler grid to look at periodically
and check for distortions in the grid lines as a possible indication of
retinal damage. They will offer full opthalamic exams only if an operator
is injured during the course of their work at USC.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 15:29:59 -0600 (edt)
From: Bruce Busby <bbusby@umich.edu>
Subject: Radiation Questions
Hi All,
I received an e mail today and the person who wrote it
has some questions that I feel needs someone with expertise
in this area to answer.
The questions concern:
... documented cases of potential versus actual damage to
embryos in the first month of pregnancy, 3rd week specifically,
by radiation from x-rays, specifically retrograde cystography,
and tests involved with the kidney area....
As you can imagine, this is an actual situation that happened a
few years ago, and this person would like some information. If
anyone would like to help this person, e mail me.
Thanks,
Bruce Busby
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 13:33:47 -0600
From: avrel@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Erick Lindstrom)
Subject: Re: New NRC committee members
Not to sound stuffy here, but aren't we talking about nominees to serve as
the Commissioners of the NRC (vs. some arbitrary Advisory Committee)?
Perhaps they should be called the NRC's "Committee of Commissioners)!
Regarding Chuck Potter's original post, is the Mark Shaffer mentioned the
same Mark Shaffer who works(ed) in the Region IV Inspection Branch?
For the sake of clarity...
Regards,
-Erick
+-------------------------------+
| Erick Lindstrom |
| Radiation Safety Officer |
| 309 Montana Hall |
| Montana State University |
| Bozeman, MT 59717-0244 |
| Phone: (406) 994-2108 |
| Fax: (406) 994-4792 |
| avrel@gemini.oscs.montana.edu |
+-------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1995 14:35:38 U
From: "Barry Siegel" <siegelb@mirlink.wustl.edu>
Subject: RE: x-rays, IRB, etc.
At Washington University School of Medicine, we have developed standard consent
form language. The investigator is required to compute an effective dose for
the experimental procedures (radioactive drug studies and/or radiologic
studies). Then the effective dose is related either to natural background (if
<300 mrem) or to occupational exposure (for doses between 300 and 5000 mrem).
We also have developed a more comprehensive Radiation Fact Sheet for
distribution by investigators to research subjects. It is almost never
requested.
Examples of the consent language are as follows:
"This study involves exposure to radiation from the radioactive drug. The
amount of radiation received from this procedure is equivalent to a uniform
whole body dose of 150 mrems. This is equivalent to 50% of the amount of
natural background radiation exposure all people in St. Louis receive each
year. It is also equivalent to about 3% of the allowable annual dose to
radiation workers (for example, x-ray technicians). The risks from the amount
of radiation in the study is too small to be measured. It is of little, if
any, consequence when compared to other everyday risks. If you would like more
information about radiation exposure, I can provide you with a radiation fact
sheet.
OR
"This study involves exposure to radiation from the radioactive drug.
The maximum amount of radiation you will receive from this procedure is
equivalent to a uniform whole-body dose of 2.6 rems. This is equivalent to
approximately half of the allowable annual radiation dose to radiation workers
(e.g., x-ray technicians). The risk from this amount of radiation is too small
to measure directly and is small when compared with other every day risks
(e.g., driving a car). If you would like more information about radiation
exposure, I can provide you with a "Radiation Fact Sheet."
This approach has been well accepted by our RSC, RDRC, and IRB. It also was
highly ranked in a formal study of consent form language (see Castonovo FP. An
attempt to standardize the radiodiagnostic risk statement in an institutional
review board consent form. Invest Radiol 1993; 28:533-538).
Barry A. Siegel, M.D.
Chairman, RDRC
Washington University School of Medicine
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu on 23 May 1995 13:24
Subject: Re: x-rays, IRB, etc.
To: Multiple recipients of list
In our institution the Radiation Safety Committee (RSC) also wears a
Radioactive Drug Research Committee (RDRC) hat. Investigative studies
involving x-rays are reviewed by the RSC/RDRC on their way to the
Institutional Review Board(IRB). As far as possible, the same standards
are used as those required of studies that involve only radioisotopes, ie,
spelt out in 21 CFR 361.1. The idea is to have a single set of standards
for all uses of ionizing radiation.
While on the subject, I have a question for Radsafers in a similar
situation: How is the patient consent form worded to explain to lay
persons what the risks of radiation are? I have discouraged the use of
passages like "... equivalent to 10 chest x-rays ...", and promoted
somewhat more honest comparisons to GI series, CT scans, etc., but have yet
to come with a wording that satisfies all the IRB committee members.
Reply by private e-mail is as welcome as postings on radsafe. Thanks in
advance.
--
P. Sridhar Rao, Radiology, CWRU / Univ Hosp of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio.
Tel: 216-844-1295. Fax: 216-844-5922. E-mail: psr@po.cwru.edu
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by MIRLink.wustl.edu with SMTP;23 May 1995 13:24:14 U
Received: from romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu [128.174.74.24]) by
postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA29412; Tue, 23 May 1995
13:20:47 -0500
Received: by romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (NX5.67d/NeXT-2.0)
id AA02898; Tue, 23 May 95 13:20:33 -0500
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 13:20:33 -0500
Message-Id: <199505231818.OAA10888@roo.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Errors-To: melissa@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Originator: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: psr@po.CWRU.Edu (P S. Rao)
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: x-rays, IRB, etc.
X-Listserver-Version: 6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Radiation Safety Distribution List
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 16:39:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com
Subject: Re: x-rays, IRB, etc.
> While on the subject, I have a question for Radsafers in a similar
> situation: How is the patient consent form worded to explain to lay
> persons what the risks of radiation are? I have discouraged the use of
> passages like "... equivalent to 10 chest x-rays ...", and promoted
> somewhat more honest comparisons to GI series, CT scans, etc., but have yet
> to come with a wording that satisfies all the IRB committee members.
I don't suppose "like living next to 10,000 radioactive waste dumps" helps ??
> --
> P. Sridhar Rao, Radiology, CWRU / Univ Hosp of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio.
> Tel: 216-844-1295. Fax: 216-844-5922. E-mail: psr@po.cwru.edu
Probably not as funny to people in radiology :-)
(It's late.)
Regards, Jim
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 16:40:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com
Subject: Re: Ward Valley "fill-the-blanks"
Does this make sense to anybody? What's VY's problem with the bill?
What's really being proposed here?
> * "Nuclear Waste Bill Rocketing Through Legislature"
> HOUSTON CHRONICLE, 5/18/95 (p. 1A)
> R.G. Ratcliffe
>
> A measure that would create a low-level nuclear-waste dump in west
> Texas "has become one of the fastest-moving bills in the 74th
> Legislature, because" the proposed site is in an economically
> depressed area, the HOUSTON CHRONICLE reports. "Billions of
> dollars" in contracts from the U.S. Departments of Energy and
> Defense are "at stake." If passed, the bill would clear the way
> for a California firm to build a low-level-waste site and a related
> research facility that would create about 1,160 jobs. "The bill
> got on the fast track" earlier this month when it was introduced
> in the state House as emergency legislation. The bill has wide
> support from Republicans, but "an odd set of political bedfellows"
> are gathering opposition. A Houston-based nuclear-waste management
> firm Yunidentified", lobbyists from a South Carolina nuclear-waste-
> management company Yunidentified", several environmental groups and
> the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. have all come out against
> the legislation. Tom Smith, head of the Texas branch of the
> consumer group Public Citizen, said the measure is "the nuclear
> waste on rollerblades bill," because "it's fast, it's hard to
> control, and it's going to cause a lot of injury."
> CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, May 16, 1995
>
Can anybody do a Texas site "fill-the-blanks" for poor Tom Smith and others
who actually think there is any potential hazard from a LLRW facility (how
about a comparison to releases from drilling a water well)?
Thanks.
Regards, Jim
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 16:40:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com
Subject: Re: New NRC committee members
> Greta Dicus is the Director of the Division of Radiation Control and
> Emergency Management, Department of Health, for Arkansas. This is
> the state program for the control of radiation in Arkansas.
>
> Wes
to be NRC Commissioner? Well, if Terry Lash....
Maybe they're better trained in Arkansas.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 16:40:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com
Subject: Re: Ward Valley "fill-the-blanks"
Well,
> * "House Rejects Nevada Nuclear-Waste Site In Surprise Move"
> SACRAMENTO BEE, 5/20/95 (p. A1)
> Dale Vargas
>
> The House voted last Thursday to abandon Yucca Mountain, NV as
> the nation's permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel and
> other high-level nuclear wastes. In approving the House budget
> resolution, lawmakers decided to eliminate funding for Yucca Mtn.
> by 1997, "leaving utilities wondering" about the fate of wastes
> "piling up at nuclear plants throughout the country." Under the
> budget bill, a blueprint for balancing the budget by 2002,
> "relatively small amounts" of money would go toward locating a
> new, permanent repository site and converting Department of
> Energy land somewhere into an interim disposal site. The DOE has
> already invested $1.4 billion in the Yucca Mountain site. DOE
> officials opposed the House move. Dan Dreyfus, chief of DOE's
> nuclear waste efforts: "I don't see that just moving this stuff
> from one place to another without any notion of what you're going
> to do with it ultimately represents a solution." The Senate
> balanced-budget proposal does not include a specific plan for the
> Yucca Mtn. site.
Now that's doing something for real about a serious candidate as the greatest
gov't boondoggle and waste of the wealth of the American people of them all!
Unfortunately, the public debate about why DOE should be stopped has not
occurred and leaves a need to begin to get at the fact that opening Yucca
Mountain will release more radioactivity than leaving the spent fuel on the
surface forever (can even backfill around the canisters when heat loss allows
for more earthquake/meteor protection), not to mention simplifying recovery of
the fuel values when (not if) we need them.
Another "fill-the-blanks" opportunity!
> SEE ALSO: "S.C. Site Looked At For Nuke-Waste Dump", LAS
> VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, 5/17/95, p. A4, Tony Batt, which reports
> that the federally owned Savannah River nuclear-weapons complex
> in South Carolina last week joined the sites outside Nevada that
> "may be considered by the Senate for the temporary storage of
> nuclear waste." In an interview, Senate Energy and Natural
> Resources Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski (R-AK) mentioned the
> site as a possible repository. Murkowski also "repeated his
> belief" that the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state
> is a possible site, but he "emphasized" he is not ruling out
> Yucca Mtn.
How long does it take to build a concrete pad?? At what cost? (Bill Rasin of
NEI confirmed the $$ >$200M for a $650M/yr DOE budget is to "keep the
scientists happy drilling holes to show something is going on at Yucca Mt.")
How many massive excess concrete buildings/strucures (at well-characterized
sites) does DOE (DOD?) have in its inventory? (And we don't need to put all
the spent fuel in one place.)
> * "NARUC Disappointed With DOE's Nuclear Waste Interpretation"
> NARUC BULLETIN, 5/15/95 (p. 7)
> Staff Report
>
> The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners has
> issued a statement criticizing a decision by the Department of
> Energy that the agency is not legally bound to accept nuclear
> waste from commercial reactors by January 31, 1998. Under the
> Nuclear Waste Act of 1992, NARUC says DOE is bound "to begin
> accepting such waste by no later than the statutory deadline."
> But in the DOE's "Final Interpretation of Nuclear Waste
> Acceptance Issues" released on April 28, the agency said it has
> "no conditional or contractual obligation" to accept the waste or
> build an interim storage facility. NARUC Commissioner Emmit
> George: "This decision adds to the burden of electric utility
> ratepayers of this nation who have contributed over $10 billion
> into the Nuclear Waste Fund to fund waste disposal by the DOE."
> George said he hopes the DOE's waste storage policy will spur
> "more aggressive" Congressional action. "This issue is better
> resolved by public policy makers, rather than by the judiciary,"
> he said.
> SEE ALSO: Related news abstract above.
Anybody want to do the "fill-the-blanks" that we did in the late '70s that
shows that opening and handling waste from Hanford tanks and digging a hole to
bury it will release more radioactivity to the environment than leaving it all
where it is forever, with minimal short-term management? (which can be debated
as to whether that's <100 or ~300 years.)
Based on Congress' performance since 1976, what's the objective foundation to
believe that the Judiciary would do worse?
> * "S.C. Loses 2nd Try To Penalize NC; Vote Over Barnwell
> Landfill May Prompt SC to Leave Compact"
> CHARLOTTE YNC" OBSERVER, 5/18/95 (p. 4C)
> Tom Saladino
>
> For the second time this month, the Southeast Compact Commission
> on Thursday refused to pass sanctions against North Carolina for
> its failure to create a low-level nuclear waste repository.
> Under the terms of the compact, North Carolina was slated to open
> a landfill to replace one in Barnwell, SC by January 1993. The
> confederation extended the deadline to 1996, but North Carolina
> state officials have yet to finally approve the creation of a
> dump outside Raleigh. The sanctions were backed by South
> Carolina, which wants to close Barnwell within the next few
> years. After the 10-6 vote, South Carolina officials said they
> may withdraw from the compact. Compact representatives from
> Mississippi, Tennessee and Virginia voted with South Carolina to
> impose the sanctions. Georgia and North Carolina opposed the
> plan, "and members from Alabama and Florida split their votes."
> North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt (R): "We remain committed to
> fulfilling our end of the compact by licensing a site here, but
> we will not do so at the expense of public health or the
> environment."
Can somebody "fill-the-blanks" for poor Gov. Hunt? Does anybody think the
releases will be greater than drilling a water well? (How 'bout a municipal
well?)
All kidding aside, the need to do some real work to prepare a base of
objective data and take that to the administration, the Congress, and the
courts (instead of paying millions for PR about how we can spend billions to
protect the public from this most heinous risk!)
And this doesn't even count the issue of the fallacy of the linear
dose-response model!!?
Regards, Jim
------------------------------
End of Digest
************************