[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Thorium in lenses
- To: SMTP PMDFADDR <MAILGATE@ADDRMELON.CA.BOEING.COM>
- Subject: Thorium in lenses
- From: "RICHARD W. EDWARDS" <SHEA132@KGV2.bems.boeing.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Sep 1995 07:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
- Alternate-Recipient: prohibited
- Disclose-Recipients: prohibited
- Hop-Count: 0
- Importance: normal
- Mr-Received: by mta MELON; Relayed; Fri, 01 Sep 1995 07:07:48 -0700
- Priority: normal
- Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 07:15:05 -0700
- Resent-From: SHEA132@KGV2.bems.boeing.com
- Resent-Message-Id: <9509011420.AA22539@atc.boeing.com>
- Resent-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
- Ua-Content-Id: Thorium in lenses
- X400-Mts-Identifier: [;MRP$1SEP199507074798]
Regarding the discussion re the applicability of the exemption to thorium
coated lenses, perhaps the following may help:
"Optical glass made with thorium oxide (in amounts ranging from 5 to 28% by
weight), instead of the traditional silica, has a higher refractive index for
given dispersions than most optical glasses."From Thorium--Its Industrial
Hygiene Aspects, Roy E. Albert. 1966.
This was one of a series of mongraphs put out by the American Industrial
Hygiene Association and the US AEC Division of Technical Information. The
information was provided by W.S. Sutton of Eastman Kodak.
This would imply the purpose of the exemption was aimed at these glasses
rather than coated lenses. What a regulator today will do in enforcement is
another question entirely. Also, some of you may not be aware that the USNRC
periodically reviews existing exemptions. I believe this is being done now,
perhaps by the folks at ORNL.
I hope this helps.
This represents my opinion only and does not reflect the opinion of my
employer or anyone else of importance.
Thanks,
Richard W. Edwards, Analyst The Boeing Company
Phone: (206) 393-1999 P.O. Box 3707, M/S 6Y-38
Fax: (206) 393-3060 Seattle, WA 98124-2207