[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
**************************