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

RE: RADSAFE digest 1602



A recent report from Doll and Wakeford (British J. Radiology 70:
130-139; 1997) reviews risk of childhood cancer from fetal irradiation
including a discussion of the A-bomb experience.

Kenneth L. Mossman
Professor of Health Physics
Director, Office of Radiation Protection
Arizona State University
Campus Box 3501
Tempe, Arizona 85287-3501
Phone: (602) 965-6140/0584
Fax: (602) 965-6609/991-4998
E-mail: ken.mossman@asu.edu

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
[SMTP:radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu]
	Sent:	Thursday, November 06, 1997 9:27 AM
	To:	Multiple recipients of list
	Subject:	RADSAFE digest 1602

				    RADSAFE Digest 1602

	Topics covered in this issue include:

	  1) Criticism/Rebuttal of Alice Stewarts findings of excess
		by Andy Hull <hull@mail.sep.bnl.gov>
	  2) NORM Disposal Sites
		by ERGKBAKER@aol.com
	  3) More on Rocketdyne study
		by Gary Schroeder <schroede@mail.sep.bnl.gov>
	  4) Health Physics Technician Position
		by brannan_c@kees-sg01.kee.aetc.af.mil
	  5) Pu-239,240:Am-241 Ratios 
		by Joel Webb <jwebb@cemrc.nmsu.edu>
	  6) PEACEMAKER
		by Robin_Siskel@notes.ymp.gov
	  7) Second hand "Quantulus"
		by "Franz Schoenhofer" <schoenho@via.at>
	  8) Re: Pu-239,240:Am-241 Ratios 
		by "Franz Schoenhofer" <schoenho@via.at>
	  9) Re: Two articles in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
		by John Pickering <johnjp@email.sjsu.edu>
	 10) Re: Rocketdyne Worker study
		by "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@ucdavis.edu>
	 11) NRC Form 526
		by Wes Van Pelt <VanPeltW@idt.net>
	 12) Re: Rocketdyne Worker study
		by John Goldsmith  <gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>
	 13) Re: Rocketdyne Worker study
		by John Goldsmith  <gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>
	 14) looking for job opportunity
		by iabdul2 <iabdul2@po-box.mcgill.ca>
	 15) Radiofrequency Exposure Standards
		by Tad Blanchard <Tad.M.Blanchard.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>
	 16) looking for part time RSO
		by michele.smith@amd.com
	 17) Re: Pu-239,240:Am-241 Ratios 
		by Bates.Estabrooks@rfets.gov (Bates Estabrooks)
	 18) Re: exempt quantities
		by "Betty E Schwab" <bschwab@hsc.vcu.edu>
	 19) OS&H Rocketdyne article
		by Gary Schroeder <schroede@mail.sep.bnl.gov>
	 20) Re: looking for part time RSO
		by "William D. Ulicny" <wulicny@erols.com>
	 21) comment on looking for part time RSO
		by michele.smith@amd.com
	 22) Thanks to RADSAFE
		by Kim D Merritt <kdmerri@sandia.gov>
	 23) Re: Criticism/Rebuttal of Alice Stewarts findings of excess
		by Andy Hull <hull@mail.sep.bnl.gov>
	 24) Radiation Exposure from Smoking
		by "Paul E Ruhter"<RUH@inel.gov>
	 25) Re: Rocketdyne Worker study
		by carol marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu>


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

	Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:34:13 -0500
	From: Andy Hull <hull@mail.sep.bnl.gov>
	To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	Subject: Criticism/Rebuttal of Alice Stewarts findings of excess
	Message-ID: <E0xTD5Z-0000gf-00@mail.sep.bnl.gov>

	Marvin Goldman has asked Otto Raabe if he knows of any published
	criticism/rebuttal of Alice Stewart"s findings about three
decades ago of
	excess mortality in very young children who were X-rayed in
utero.  While
	I'm not aware of any, I do recall seeing several references to
the inability
	of ABCC/RERF
	investigators to identify a comparable outcome in those who were
subject to
	A-bomb radiations while in utero.  At some occasion, I think
while she was
	testifying at a hearing about the hazards of the radiation
emitted during
	the TMI-2 reactor accident, I heard her provide a very
complicated
	explanation of this. My recollection is that it had to do with
the early
	selective mortality of the weakest of the surviving Japanese
childhood
	population.  I was left, as I have been on other occasions when
I've heard
	her expound on some of her other findings , with the feeling
that she has
	not heard of Occam's razor.

	Andrew P. Hull
	S&EP Div, BNL
	Upton, NY 11973
	Ph. 516-344-4210
	Fax 516-344-3105 


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

	Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:49:31 -0500 (EST)
	From: ERGKBAKER@aol.com
	To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	Subject: NORM Disposal Sites
	Message-ID: <971105161543_305104555@emout02.mail.aol.com>

	I am attempting to develop a listing of existing and proposed
NORM disposal
	sites in the U.S. and would appreciate help.  Please reply to
	ERGKBAKER@aol.com

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

	Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 17:32:33 -0500
	From: Gary Schroeder <schroede@mail.sep.bnl.gov>
	To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	Subject: More on Rocketdyne study
	Message-ID: <3.0.32.19971105173233.006c52d8@mail.sep.bnl.gov>

	>We have not gotten very far with our review of the
Rocketdyne/AI worker
	study,
	>but it is evident that this study does not justify any
immediate change in
	our
	>standards or practices.  I suspect that, for many people,  the
presence of
	Alice
	>Stewart on the advisory panel and Douglas Crawford-Brown as a
consultant
	will be
	>enough to relegate the report to the trash can, but we must
look a little
	deeper.

	That may be true to people who know who Alice Stewart is, but to
others,
	some of the statements made in this report may appear to be
credible.
	Statemements such as 

	"[the study] found that nine of the facility's workers died from
cancers
	attributable to external radiation exposures of 10 mSv or more"
and 

	"[the study allowed] researchers to detect elevated death rates
from
	cancers that had not before been associated with radiation
exposures."

	were made in a occupational safety publication which obviously
drew some
	very serious, if misguided conclusions from the report.  The
average reader
	probably dosen't know that specific cancers cannot be
epidemiologically
	attributed to radiation exposure at the 10 mSv level, and they
are most
	certainly unaware of the statistical shortcomings of the report.


	>My problem at the moment is in trying to determine how the
investigators
	found 1
	>or 2 deaths in a group to be statistically significant using a
95%
	confidence interval.

	If you torture the numbers long enough...

	=======================
	Gary L. Schroeder
	Brookhaven National Laboratory
	Environmental Protection Office
	gs1@bnl.gov

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

	Date: Wed, 5 Nov 97 16:07:25 CST
	From: brannan_c@kees-sg01.kee.aetc.af.mil
	To: <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
	Subject: Health Physics Technician Position
	Message-ID: <vines.04,8+TsCMoA@kees-sg01.kee.aetc.af.mil>

	Keesler Medical Center, located on Keesler Air Force Base,
Biloxi, MS is 
	soliciting applicants for the following position:

		HEALTH PHYSICS TECHNICIAN (1 contract)
		Solicitation #: F22600-97-R0093.
	Applicant shall have provided health physics tech services for a
minimum of 
	one year during the past three years, having performed ambient
dose rate 
	and contamination surveys, swipe test analysis using a
multi-channel 
	analyzer, radiation decontamination, and quality control of
radiation 
	measuring equipment.  The technician must be able to work alone
with 
	minimal supervision, must be highly motivated, and must be able
to plan a 
	daily work schedule.  Applicant shall submit references, proof
of 
	experience and board eligibility or certification from the
National 
	Registry of Radiation Protection Technologists, and an
Associates degree, 
	or equivalent undergraduate courses, in the Physical or
Biological 
	Sciences.

	Applications will be accepted from individuals only.  The above
represents 
	the minimum requirements for each position.  Include name,
address and 
	phone number of three references.  References will be verified.
Applicants 
	will be evaluated and ranked based on experience, past
performance and 
	education.  A personal service contract for a base and three
option years 
	will be negotiated with highest ranked individual(s) for each
requirement.

	Inquiries or additional information to Tom Kocurek, (228)
377-1808.  Submit 
	applications to arrive not later than 4 pm, Monday, 17 November
1997, to 81 
	CONS/LGCV, 200 Fifth Street, Room 102, Keesler AFB, MS
39534-2102.

	The above announcement was also printed in the local newspaper,
The Sun 
	Herald.

	Please contact the individual named above (not me).


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

	Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:59:33 -0700
	From: Joel Webb <jwebb@cemrc.nmsu.edu>
	To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'"
<radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
	Subject: Pu-239,240:Am-241 Ratios 
	Message-ID: <01BCEA0C.311FB540@carls-env-37.NMSU.Edu>

	Hello!

	Does anybody know what are reasonable values for the ratio of
Pu-239,240 to Am-241 in soil from global fallout (I would guess between
2 and 3)?  Any references would be great.  Is anybody aware of Am-241
being depleted from soil relative to Pu-239,240? 

	Thank you!

	Joel Webb
	New Mexico State University



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

	Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 16:25:31 -0800
	From: Robin_Siskel@notes.ymp.gov
	To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	Subject: PEACEMAKER
	Message-ID: <88256546.007D58CE.00@ymln11.ymp.gov>


	OK, I just can't resist adding a little fuel to the fire! I
believe in
	Peacemaker the two kiloton weapon wasn't detonated, only the
detonator
	itself blew up without the proper configuration/geometry to
trigger the
	nuclear reaction.  So the dose consequences were a function of
vaporized
	pit, pit fragments and debris from the detonator blast...

	Robin Siskel
	email:  Robin_Siskel@ymp.gov



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

	Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 01:02:16 +0100
	From: "Franz Schoenhofer" <schoenho@via.at>
	To: "RADSAFE" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
	Subject: Second hand "Quantulus"
	Message-ID: <199711060030.BAA22433@ns1.via.at>

	Schoenhofer
	Habichergasse 31/7
	A-1160 Wien
	AUSTRIA
	Tel./Fax: +43-1-4955308
	Mobiltel.: +43-664-3380333
	e-mail: schoenho@via.at

	I post this for a collegue:

	Is there anybody who knows about a used "Quantulus" ultra
low-level liquid
	scintillation spectrometer which is for sale - or a laboratory
which
	finishes with its activities and wants to sell one?

	Please reply strictly to my e-mail address and  n o t   to
RADSAFE.

	Franz

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

	Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 01:38:34 +0100
	From: "Franz Schoenhofer" <schoenho@via.at>
	To: <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
	Subject: Re: Pu-239,240:Am-241 Ratios 
	Message-ID: <199711060040.BAA24099@ns1.via.at>

	Schoenhofer
	Habichergasse 31/7
	A-1160 Wien
	AUSTRIA
	Tel./Fax: +43-1-4955308
	Mobiltel.: +43-664-3380333
	e-mail: schoenho@via.at

	----------
	> Von: Joel Webb <jwebb@cemrc.nmsu.edu>
	> An: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
	> Betreff: Pu-239,240:Am-241 Ratios 
	> Datum: Donnerstag, 06. November 1997 01:04
	> 
	> Hello!
	> 
	> Does anybody know what are reasonable values for the ratio of
Pu-239,240
	to Am-241 in soil from global fallout (I would guess between 2
and 3)?  Any
	references would be great.  Is anybody aware of Am-241 being
depleted from
	soil relative to Pu-239,240? 
	> 
	> Thank you!
	> 
	> Joel Webb
	> New Mexico State University
	> 
	>--------------------------------------------------------------
	Global fallout has not been to "global", Scandinavia being more
affected by
	Sovjet atmospheric tests, the tests in Nevada affecting the US,
the French
	tests in French Polynesia affecting the Southern Hemisphere etc.
The ratio
	depends on the purity of the Pu-239 used and the time elapsed
since
	detonation. Maybe there is an average ratio, but if RADSAFERS
know about
	differences I would greatly appreciate to receive this
information myself.

	Am and Pu behave different in the environment and therefore
migration in
	soil is different. As far as I remember there was a paper in
Health Physics
	about half a year or a year ago about migration in soil at a US
site.

	Franz 

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

	Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:47:30 -0800 (PST)
	From: John Pickering <johnjp@email.sjsu.edu>
	To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	Subject: Re: Two articles in The Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists
	Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19971105164341.38ef834e@email.sjsu.edu>

	I have not seen the articles, but if you hum a few bars, I'll
try to play
	it.  Or maybe you could send a copy for review.
	John Pickering

	If you see Maymie, tell I said hello.


	At 04:27 PM 10/31/97 -0600, you wrote:
	>The November/December 1997 issue of The Bulletin of the Atomic 
	>Scientists has two articles:
	>
	>1. "Worse Than We Knew" by Pat Ortmeyer & Arjun Makhijani
	>2. "No Dose Too Low" by Ian Fairlie & Marvin Resnikoff
	>
	>Any comments about them?
	>
	>Armando Zea
	>azea@engr-serv.usc.edu
	>
	>


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

	Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 17:38:23 -0800
	From: "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@ucdavis.edu>
	To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	Subject: Re: Rocketdyne Worker study
	Message-ID:
<3.0.1.32.19971105173823.006cd824@peseta.ucdavis.edu>

	November 5, 1997
	Davis, CA

	To answer Marv Goldmans's question about the critique of Alice
Stewart's
	old work on prenatal irradiation, I can only say that one of the
speakers
	at the NCRP annual meeting in April covered this quite well. I
presume we
	will find the critique in the proceedings of that meeting.

	Otto

*****************************************************
			Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
	                [President, Health Physics Society, 1997-1998]
			Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health
(ITEH)
			     (Street address: Old Davis Road)
			University of California, Davis, CA 95616
			Phone: 530-752-7754     FAX: 530-758-6140
			E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu

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

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

	Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 23:07:34 -0500
	From: Wes Van Pelt <VanPeltW@idt.net>
	To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	Subject: NRC Form 526
	Message-ID: <34614286.661AA085@idt.net>

	Hi Radsafers,

	Does anyone know if I can download an NRC Form 526 (a Small
Entity form
	to get a reduced license fee) anywhere on the Net??

	thanks,
	Wes

	-- 
	Wesley R. Van Pelt, Ph.D., CIH, CHP                KF2LG
	President, Van Pelt Associates, Inc.     
	Consulting in radiological health and safety.
	mailto:VanPeltW@IDT.net        
	http://shell.idt.net/~vanpeltw/index.html

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

	Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:43:00 +0200 (IST)
	From: John Goldsmith  <gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>
	To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
	Subject: Re: Rocketdyne Worker study
	Message-ID:
<Pine.OSF.3.96.971106093635.3362A-100000@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>

	Otto:
	    I strenously object to the last paragraph of your message.
Who has
	discredited the work on prenatal exposure, and how does this
derive from
	what sort of selection bias?  Finally, what your learned at ICRP
is 
	either gossip or worthless hearsay unless you are willing to
document it.
	Regardless of our feelings, let us adhere to conventions
relative to 
	scientific evidence. Your comments on the Rocketdyne report, of
which I
	don't yet have a copy will be seriously considered.
	         John Goldsmith, M.D., M.P.H.  gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il
	          

	On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Otto G. Raabe wrote:

	> November 5, 1997
	> Davis, CA
	> 
	> Dear RadSafers:
	> 
	> The Rocketdyne Worker Study is subject to flawed or perhaps
biased
	> interpretation. "The study population consisted of 4,563
employees
	> monitored for external radiation and 2,297 employees monitored
for internal
	> radiation, with the second group being mostly a subset of the
first." The
	> report of the study shows clearly that: "Compared with the
general U.S.
	> population, Rocketdyne/AI workers monitored for external or
	> internal-radiation exposure experienced lower mortality rates
from all
	> causes, and heart disease. Comparison of monitored
Rocketdyne/AI workers
	> with NIOSH-cohort members of comparable pay type showed lower
mortality
	> rates for all causes and heart disease, but similar mortality
rates for
	> total cancers. Compared with either reference population,
monitored
	> Rocketdyne/AI workers also experienced a higher mortality rate
from
	> leukemias." However, those higher leukemia rates were not
statistically
	> significant.
	> 
	> To get any significant results at all suggesting a deleterious
effect from
	> radiation exposure, the investigators had to ignore the low
cancer rates in
	> these workers, and limit comparisons to within the study
groups. The
	> employees of Rocketdyne are said to show the "healthy worker
effect"
	> justifying the ignoring of the comparisons to outside control
population data.
	> 
	> The next step was to do many statistical tests (many more than
100 are
	> listed in the report) with various arbitrary lag times and
look for any
	> significant results. By this process some were found. By
grouping all
	> hemato- and lymphopoetic cancers into one group (including
lymphosarcoma
	> and excluding chronic lymphatic leukemias), one group at >200
mSv external
	> exposure had 2 cases that were mathematically significant.
These two cases
	> drove the trend test to be significant when lower doses were
considered
	> that did not in themselves show any significant effect. Also,
2 persons
	> dies of lung cancer in the >200 mSv group. The authors seemed
to be unsure
	> about whether prior radiation exposure could be important, so
that in many
	> of these comparisons even significantly higher prior radiation
exposures
	> received at some earlier job were ignored. 
	> 
	> To get a any significant results from the internal exposure
phase of the
	> study, the authors has to create a special grouping of cancers
called
	> "Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers". Although this is not a
known target of
	> any of the internal emitters to which workers were exposed,
they concluded
	> that among the 5 cases for exposures above 5 mSv that there
was a
	> significant increase in these types of cancer compared to the
3 cases
	> observed in the unexposed group. It is not clear to me that
the logistic
	> model used for these analyses is appropriate for such small
numbers of
	> observed cases. Also, the internal dosimetry metric is not an
actual
	> internal dose, but rather an unusual interpretation of
bioassay data.
	> 
	> The authors did not report having looked at these few cases
that drove
	> their findingd to see if there were other explanations for
these slightly
	> high occurrence rates in these two particular groups. What
about personal
	> habits? What about chemical exposures? What about adjusting
the
	> significance levels for the fishing expedition style of
epistemology?
	> 
	> The report of the mostly anti-nuclear advisory committee seems
to a
	> reworking of one of Alice Stewarts old anti-nuclear essays.
Unfortunately,
	> that highly biased advisory committee report is being widely
quoted. 
	> 
	> I learned at the NCRP meeting last April, that Alice Stewarts
pioneering
	> work on exposure of pregnant women to x rays with respect to
childhood
	> leukemia has been discredited because of selection bias. Most
studies by
	> Alice Stewart have looked for any effects that may appear to
be elevated
	> after radiation exposure while ignoring those that may be
reduced. 
	>
*****************************************************
	> 		Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
	>                 [President, Health Physics Society, 1997-1998]
	> 		Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health
(ITEH)
	> 		     (Street address: Old Davis Road)
	> 		University of California, Davis, CA 95616
	> 		Phone: 530-752-7754     FAX: 530-758-6140
	> 		E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu
	>
******************************************************
	> 


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

	Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:18:42 +0200 (IST)
	From: John Goldsmith  <gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>
	To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
	Subject: Re: Rocketdyne Worker study
	Message-ID:
<Pine.OSF.3.96.971106101448.3362D-100000@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>

	Otto:
	    Can you not even recall the name of this speaker?  Did he or
she cover
	quite well the similar problems of McMahon's work which
confirmed Alice
	Stewart's findings ?  John Goldsmith. gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il   

	On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Otto G. Raabe wrote:

	> November 5, 1997
	> Davis, CA
	> 
	> To answer Marv Goldmans's question about the critique of Alice
Stewart's
	> old work on prenatal irradiation, I can only say that one of
the speakers
	> at the NCRP annual meeting in April covered this quite well. I
presume we
	> will find the critique in the proceedings of that meeting.
	> 
	> Otto
	>
*****************************************************
	> 		Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
	>                 [President, Health Physics Society, 1997-1998]
	> 		Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health
(ITEH)
	> 		     (Street address: Old Davis Road)
	> 		University of California, Davis, CA 95616
	> 		Phone: 530-752-7754     FAX: 530-758-6140
	> 		E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu
	>
******************************************************
	> 


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

	Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 08:30:03 +0000
	From: iabdul2 <iabdul2@po-box.mcgill.ca>
	To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	Subject: looking for job opportunity
	Message-ID: <3461800B.59E2@po-box.mcgill.ca>

	Hi 

	I am looking for a position im health physics. I have a Ph.D. in

	health physics with two yeares of practical experience and 5
yeares as 
	a teaching experienc. If you are aware of a position in the
haelth 
	physics field, please do not hezitate to contact me any time
either by 
	phone at (514) 670-6959 or by email to iabdul2@po-box.mcgill.ca.

	I appreciate your help.

	isa

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

	Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 09:00:56 -0500
	From: Tad Blanchard <Tad.M.Blanchard.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>
	To: RADSAFE@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	Subject: Radiofrequency Exposure Standards
	Message-ID:
<3.0.32.19971106090055.00914e30@pop200.gsfc.nasa.gov>

	Hi all,

	Does someone have a quick URL or other link to a web site that
shows
	intercomparisons of RF exposure limits by Country?  

	Any help would be appreciated.

	Also, as a side note.  The US FCC has recently intermixed two
standards for
	RF protection, combining ANSI and NCRP guidelines.  The new FCC
standard is
	more restrictive in the higher frequencies.





	************************** /^\   /^\
***********************************
	Tad  Blanchard            /__ \ /___\   NASA-Goddard Space
Flight Center
	Nat'l Health Svc, Inc          O         Code 205.9, Greenbelt,
MD 20771
	Sr Health Physics Tech        / \                    Phone:
301-286-9157
	Assistant RSO                /___\                   Fax:
301-286-1618
	                 mailto:Tad.M.Blanchard.1@GSFC.NASA.gov
	        http://panza.gsfc.nasa.gov/205/205-2/Health/RADPROT.HTM

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

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

	Date: 06 Nov 1997 08:27:35 -0600
	From: michele.smith@amd.com
	To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	Subject: looking for part time RSO
	Message-ID:
<"ISOPRO-1.61.063::DH-NO::36E3::3461D4BF"*/G=Michele/S=Smith/O=txmta1/PR
MD=AMD/ADMD=ATTMAIL/C=US@MHS>


	In our continuing efforts to explore a "Laboratory Compliance
Manager", we
	are faced with the very real and immediate need to replace our
current
	RSO.  You may remember that our proposed Lab Compliance Manager
(LCM)
	would be 1/3 RSO, 1/3 biosafety officer and 1/3 chemical hygiene
officer.
	However, our RSO leaves OU in less than 18 months, so we must
begin to
	"search" for a new RSO, regardless of the status of an LCM
position.  Our
	department RSO was (before he became our RSO) a PhD in the
department of
	chemistry, who occasionally lectured for labs, but technically
performed
	more administrative work than anything else.  Chemistry and EH&S
then
	decided to "divide" this individual up:  30 hours/week chemistry
(for
	which he reports to the Chemistry Lab Manager); 10 hours/week
RSO (for
	which he reports to myself).  And it worked as well as can be
expected
	overall.

	NOW..we need a new 10 hour/week RSO, and we're just not sure
where to
	"find" one.  Possibilities we have thought of are as follows:

	1) Find an existing faculty member (with a health physics or
chemistry
	background and radiation safety experience/training) at OU who
is
	willing/able to take on an additional 10 hours/week as our RSO
(for a
	small salary increase).  We already know that our chances of
finding a
	suitable (not to mention willing) internal candidate in this
regard are
	zero to none.

	2) Hire a permanent part-time (10 hr/week) individual (from the
	"outside") with the academic credentials and rad safety
	training/experience, and add him/her to the EH&S staff.  But,
who on earth
	would want to take a 10 hr/week job on a permanent or
semi-permanent
	basis??

	3) Hire an RSO "consultant" to do the work (ok, I know it's
completely out
	of the question, but my VP will have wanted me to explore all
possible
	options).

	4) Find an academic department who needs a lecturer, and hire a
	"lecturer/RSO".

	5) ???????

	What haven't I thought of?  What has everyone else done when
faced with
	this dilemma at your schools?

	"Sister schools" please reply.  We are a relatively small school
(14,500
	FTE).  We have a broad scope license, but our isotopes are
simply not
	monumental in scope or volume.

	Thanks in advance.  Rik



	Rikki B. Schwartz
	Director, EH&S
	Oakland University
	Rochester, MI 48309-4401
	Phone (248) 370-4196
	Fax (248) 370-4376
	e-mail rbschwar@oakland.edu

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

	Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 07:26:20 -0700
	From: Bates.Estabrooks@rfets.gov (Bates Estabrooks)
	To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>,
	Subject: Re: Pu-239,240:Am-241 Ratios 
	Message-ID: <199711061434.AA01060@rfgate.rfets.gov>

	          Joel;
	          
	          FYI, at Rocky Flats, our Background Soils
Characterization 
	          Project showed means of 0.038 pCi/g and 0.0107 pCi/g
for Pu 
	          239/240 and Am 241, respectively in surface soils.
	          
	          For stream sediments the numbers are 0.537 and 0.173 
	          respectively.
	          
	          For subsurface soils (below 15 cm.) our results are 
	          effectively zero.
	          
	          If you have any further questions, please give me a
call.  We 
	          have quite a few reports that may be of interest.
	          
	          Bates Estabrooks
	          RFETS
	          303-966-3769


	______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
	Subject: Pu-239,240:Am-241 Ratios 
	Author:  Joel Webb <jwebb%cemrc.nmsu.edu@inet.rfets.gov> at inet
	Date:    11/5/97 6:06 PM


	Hello!
	          
	Does anybody know what are reasonable values for the ratio of
Pu-239,240 to 
	Am-241 in soil from global fallout (I would guess between 2 and
3)?  Any 
	references would be great.  Is anybody aware of Am-241 being
depleted from soil 
	relative to Pu-239,240? 
	          
	Thank you!
	          
	Joel Webb
	New Mexico State University
	          
	          

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

	Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 09:45:26 -0500
	From: "Betty E Schwab" <bschwab@hsc.vcu.edu>
	To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	Subject: Re: exempt quantities
	Message-ID: <3461D805.296507DD@hsc.vcu.edu>

	Radsafers,
	    Thanks for your replies to my question about how NRC
licensees
	should treat exempt quantities.  The answer seems to be that
certain
	specific products may be exempted from Part 20 requirements, but
exempt
	quantities of RAM under Part 30 are not exempted from Part 20
	requirements.  Obviously, products such as watches, gas
detectors,
	tritium exit signs at our facilities are exempt from Part 20 or
else we
	would have to regulate these products as RAM under our licenses.

	    The C-14 urea capsules for detection of H. pylori are
expected to
	become exempt under Part 30, but NOT from Part 20 requirements.
As one
	of the NRC subscribers who replied to my post pointed out, this
	difference is only important to those who are licensees.
Licensees that
	receive the C-14 urea capsules will have to meet Part 20
requirements.

	    A general license is different from exempt quantities.  As I
	understand the regulations, a medical licensee can also have an
RIA in
	vitro clinical lab (for example) that operates under a general
license
	as long as the requirements under Part 31 are met.  This would
free the
	clinical lab from lots of paperwork and disposal requirements.

	Betty Schwab, MPH
	Radiation Safety Supervisor
	Virginia Commonwealth University
	Richmond, VA



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

	Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 09:49:31 -0500
	From: Gary Schroeder <schroede@mail.sep.bnl.gov>
	To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	Subject: OS&H Rocketdyne article
	Message-ID: <3.0.32.19971106094930.006cbadc@mail.sep.bnl.gov>

	Several people have asked to know the precise source of the
article dealing
	with the Rocketdyne study that appeared on Radsafe yesterday.
It is:

	Occupational Safety & Health Reporter
	September 24, 1997
	Vol. 27, No. 17
	Pages 551-574
	Copyright the Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
	Washington, DC 20037

	It is a weekly format newsletter.
	=======================
	Gary L. Schroeder
	Brookhaven National Laboratory
	Environmental Protection Office
	gs1@bnl.gov

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

	Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 10:03:44 -0800
	From: "William D. Ulicny" <wulicny@erols.com>
	To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	Subject: Re: looking for part time RSO
	Message-ID: <34620680.3D43@erols.com>

	michele.smith@amd.com wrote:
	> 
	> In our continuing efforts to explore a "Laboratory Compliance
Manager", we
	> are faced with the very real and immediate need to replace our
current
	> RSO.  ...  we need a new 10 hour/week RSO, and we're just not
sure where to
	> "find" one.

	Michele,

	Are you a state school?  Are there other small schools in your
local area?  You may be 
	able to "work a deal" to share an RSO who would cover both
schools for a proportionate 
	amount of time.

	Another option, though I'm not so sure if it is practical, is to
have a consultant RSO 
	for about 10-12 hours per month, and a senior technician level
person onsite for 10 
	hours per week (or as needed).  This may even work out to be
less money.

	Just a few of my wayward thoughts,

	-----------------------
	Bill Ulicny

	ATL International Inc.
	12800 Middlebrook Rd
	Trevion II, Suite 100
	Germantown, MD 20874-5204

	301-515-6799
	301-972-6904 (fax)

	wulicny@erols.com
	http://www.atlintl.com

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

	Date: 06 Nov 1997 09:20:34 -0600
	From: michele.smith@amd.com
	To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	Subject: comment on looking for part time RSO
	Message-ID:
<"ISOPRO-1.61.063::DH-NO::5F74::3461E12B"*/G=Michele/S=Smith/O=txmta1/PR
MD=AMD/ADMD=ATTMAIL/C=US@MHS>

	I apologize.  I forgot to say, I was posting this for someone
else.  Please
	reply to Rikki B. Schwartz (rbschwar@oakland.edu) of Oakland
University.
	She is not on the list, so it is better to reply to directly to
her. 
	Thanks for your help.


	In our continuing efforts to explore a "Laboratory Compliance
Manager", we
	are faced with the very real and immediate need to replace our
current
	RSO.  You may remember that our proposed Lab Compliance Manager
(LCM)
	would be 1/3 RSO, 1/3 biosafety officer and 1/3 chemical hygiene
officer.
	However, our RSO leaves OU in less than 18 months, so we must
begin to
	"search" for a new RSO, regardless of the status of an LCM
position.  Our
	department RSO was (before he became our RSO) a PhD in the
department of
	chemistry, who occasionally lectured for labs, but technically
performed
	more administrative work than anything else.  Chemistry and EH&S
then
	decided to "divide" this individual up:  30 hours/week chemistry
(for
	which he reports to the Chemistry Lab Manager); 10 hours/week
RSO (for
	which he reports to myself).  And it worked as well as can be
expected
	overall.

	NOW..we need a new 10 hour/week RSO, and we're just not sure
where to
	"find" one.  Possibilities we have thought of are as follows:

	1) Find an existing faculty member (with a health physics or
chemistry
	background and radiation safety experience/training) at OU who
is
	willing/able to take on an additional 10 hours/week as our RSO
(for a
	small salary increase).  We already know that our chances of
finding a
	suitable (not to mention willing) internal candidate in this
regard are
	zero to none.

	2) Hire a permanent part-time (10 hr/week) individual (from the
	"outside") with the academic credentials and rad safety
	training/experience, and add him/her to the EH&S staff.  But,
who on earth
	would want to take a 10 hr/week job on a permanent or
semi-permanent
	basis??

	3) Hire an RSO "consultant" to do the work (ok, I know it's
completely out
	of the question, but my VP will have wanted me to explore all
possible
	options).

	4) Find an academic department who needs a lecturer, and hire a
	"lecturer/RSO".

	5) ???????

	What haven't I thought of?  What has everyone else done when
faced with
	this dilemma at your schools?

	"Sister schools" please reply.  We are a relatively small school
(14,500
	FTE).  We have a broad scope license, but our isotopes are
simply not
	monumental in scope or volume.

	Thanks in advance.  Rik



	Rikki B. Schwartz
	Director, EH&S
	Oakland University
	Rochester, MI 48309-4401
	Phone (248) 370-4196
	Fax (248) 370-4376
	e-mail rbschwar@oakland.edu

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

	Date: 06 Nov 1997 08:37:41 -0700
	From: Kim D Merritt <kdmerri@sandia.gov>
	To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (IPM Return requested)
	Subject: Thanks to RADSAFE


	     I would like to thank everyone who has helped me over the
past couple 
	     of years.  I am leaving Sandia tomorrow to work at Lawrence
Livermore 
	     and health physics will play a smaller part in my overall
job, so I'm 
	     not sure that I will have the luxury of resubscribing.
RADSAFE is a 
	     great resource and I have learned quite a bit by monitoring
your 
	     discussions.
	     
	********************************************************
	*Kim Merritt, RRPT                                     *
	*Sandia Labs, NM                                       *
	*kdmerri@sandia.gov                                    *
	*When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem * 
	*begins to resemble a nail.  -- Abraham Maslow         *
	********************************************************


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

	Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 11:04:58 -0500
	From: Andy Hull <hull@mail.sep.bnl.gov>
	To: Bates.Estabrooks@rfets.gov (Bates Estabrooks)
	Cc: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	Subject: Re: Criticism/Rebuttal of Alice Stewarts findings of
excess
	Message-ID: <E0xTUQU-0003hv-00@mail.sep.bnl.gov>

	Bates,
	My reason for not answering you sooner is that I was hesitant
about trusting
	my recollection (which turned out to be essentially correct).
So, with the
	aid of our Research Librarian, who located a Web Site for it at
	http:www.medinfo.ufl.edu/year1/bcs/interv/occam.html , the
following  more
	authoritative information is : Occam's Razor, named after the
Franciscan
	William of Occam (1285-1349), is also referred to as the
Principle of
	Parsimony.  At it's core the Razor assumes that simpler
explanations are
	inherently "better" than complicated ones. The scientific method
of
	hypothesis generation and testing relies heavily on this
powerful tool.
	Here are some interpretations:

	One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of
entities
	required to explain anything.

	One should always choose the simplest explanation of a
phenomenon, the one
	that requires the fewest leaps of logic.

	Don't make unnecessarily complicated assumptions.

	Make things as simple as possible-but no simpler. (Albert
Einstein)

	KISS-Keep it simple stupid.

	The principle seems to me to be quite applicable to Stewart's
torturous
	explanations for why her conclusions which find health effects
at low doses
	are a better fit to the data than the those based on
conventional arguments
	which find no effect at the same low doses.
	generally accepted ones.  



	At 02:59 PM 11/5/97 -0700, you wrote:
	>          
	>Andy;
	>
	>Evidently I'm as ignorant as Alice.  "Occam's Razor?"  Please
enlighten me.
	>
	>Bates Estabrooks
	>RFETS
	>
	>______________________________ Reply Separator
	_________________________________
	>Subject: Criticism/Rebuttal of Alice Stewarts findings of
excess
	>Author:  Andy Hull <hull%mail.sep.bnl.gov@inet.rfets.gov> at
inet
	>Date:    11/5/97 3:37 PM
	>
	>
	>Marvin Goldman has asked Otto Raabe if he knows of any
published 
	>criticism/rebuttal of Alice Stewart"s findings about three
decades ago of 
	>excess mortality in very young children who were X-rayed in
utero.  While I'm 
	>not aware of any, I do recall seeing several references to the
inability of 
	>ABCC/RERF
	>investigators to identify a comparable outcome in those who
were subject to 
	>A-bomb radiations while in utero.  At some occasion, I think
while she was 
	>testifying at a hearing about the hazards of the radiation
emitted during 
	>the TMI-2 reactor accident, I heard her provide a very
complicated 
	>explanation of this. My recollection is that it had to do with
the early 
	>selective mortality of the weakest of the surviving Japanese
childhood 
	>population.  I was left, as I have been on other occasions when
I've heard 
	>her expound on some of her other findings , with the feeling
that she has 
	>not heard of Occam's razor.
	>          
	>Andrew P. Hull
	>S&EP Div, BNL
	>Upton, NY 11973
	>Ph. 516-344-4210
	>Fax 516-344-3105 
	>          
	>
	>


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

	Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 07:12:46 -0700
	From: "Paul E Ruhter"<RUH@inel.gov>
	To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	Subject: Radiation Exposure from Smoking
	Message-ID: <87256546.007FD4DC.00@lnsmtp01.inel.gov>



	From: Paul E Ruhter@INEL on 11/06/97 07:12 AM


	To:   radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	cc:
	Subject:  Radiation Exposure from Smoking


	John Horan, who is a Past-president of the HPS and currently
retired, is
	serving as a member of the Citizen's Advisory Committee
assisting the CDC's
	INEEL Health Effects Subcommittee. He asked me to post this
question.
	Please return any responses to me and I will get them to him.

	He is interested in getting some information about the radiation
exposure
	attributable to smoking.  ICRP 93 indicated the problem was too
hard, too
	tough.  NCRP 45, dealing with natural background exposures some
20 years
	ago, suggested about 10 rem/year for a heavy smoker (2
packs/day), but went
	ahead and indicated that smoking was responsible for only 40% of
the Pb-210
	in the body.  Are there any more recent or accurate evaluations
of this
	pathway?  Many thanks in advance for your help!!!!!

	The usual reminder that I alone am responsible for the contents
of my
	        messages!

	        Paul E. Ruhter   CHP
	        Supervisor, Radiation Dosimetry & Records
	        Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company
	        Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory
(INEEL)
	        e-mail:   ruh@inel.gov



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

	Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 08:19:29 -0800
	From: carol marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu>
	To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
	Cc: mgoldman@ucdavis.edu, ograabe@ucdavis.edu
	Subject: Re: Rocketdyne Worker study
	Message-ID: <2.2.32.19971106161929.006793fc@pop.ben2.ucla.edu>

	At 02:34 AM 11/6/97 -0600, you wrote:
	>Otto:
	>    Can you not even recall the name of this speaker?  Did he
or she cover
	>quite well the similar problems of McMahon's work which
confirmed Alice
	>Stewart's findings ?  John Goldsmith. gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il

	>
	>On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Otto G. Raabe wrote:
	>
	>> November 5, 1997
	>> Davis, CA
	>> 
	>> To answer Marv Goldmans's question about the critique of
Alice Stewart's
	>> old work on prenatal irradiation, I can only say that one of
the speakers
	>> at the NCRP annual meeting in April covered this quite well.
I presume we
	>> will find the critique in the proceedings of that meeting.
	>> 
	>> Otto
	>>
*****************************************************
	>> 		Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
	>>                 [President, Health Physics Society,
1997-1998]
	>> 		Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health
(ITEH)
	>> 		     (Street address: Old Davis Road)
	>> 		University of California, Davis, CA 95616
	>> 		Phone: 530-752-7754     FAX: 530-758-6140
	>> 		E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu
	>>
******************************************************
	>> 
	>
	There is one refutation of the work of Stewart, Kneale, and
Mancuso that I
	know of.  It is a statistical and epidemiological shootout
between these
	three and---get this---the United States General Accounting
Office.  This
	Report to the Congress was published January 2, 1981.  It is
entitled,
	"Problems in Assassing the Cancer Risks of Low Level Ionizing
Radiation
	Exposure".  It is published in two volumes, and bears the
identification
	number EMD-81-1.  Appendix XVI of volume 2 has the
above-referenced discussion.

	This report overall was amazingly good.  For a GAO report it is
astounding.
	There are other sections that deal with epidemiological pitfalls
that affect
	the credibility of Stewart's prenatal irradiation studies.  

	The report was brought to the attention of the Society of
Nuclear Medicine
	on Feb. 2, 1981, by Henry Ernstthal, its then Executive
Director.

	For free copies of this report up to five, the USGAO phone
number listed is
	(202)275-6241.  I do not know whether this is current, and I
rather doubt
	that it is still available, although it must be collecting dust
in some
	libraries.  Volumes 1 and 2 together are about 2 inches thick.

	Ciao, Carol   csmarcus@ucla.edu   (310)222-2845>


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

	End of RADSAFE Digest 1602
	**************************