[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RADSAFE digest 1651
Does anyone know of any current study that has been conducted on long term
radiation effects on medical radiation workers? Specifically, the
cardiology group who invariably receive high radiation doses from
fluoroscopically guided invasive procedures. Thanks.
Ray Fong
Radiation Safety Officer
Naval Medical Center, San Diego
rfong@snd10.med.navy.mil
PH: (619) 532-8783
At 11:24 PM 12/15/97 -0600, you wrote:
> RADSAFE Digest 1651
>
>Topics covered in this issue include:
>
> 1) Re: Why sterilize radioactive seeds?
> by Chris Alston <alstonc@odrge.odr.georgetown.edu>
> 2) RE: Why sterilize radioactive seeds?
> by "Howe, John" <Howej@NMRIPO.NMRI.NNMC.NAVY.MIL>
> 3) Re: Recent LNT correspondence by Cohen and Scherer
> by Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>
> 4) Resonse to Meinhold message on LNT
> by Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>
> 5) Obituary of Prominent Physician
> by Judd Sills <sillsj@GAT.COM>
> 6) Accelerator Health Physics
> by Scott Davidson <Scott.Davidson@EM.DOE.GOV>
> 7) food irradiation related question
> by "Thatcher, Drew" <dht0303@hub.doh.wa.gov>
> 8) Re: food irradiation related question
> by Tad Blanchard <Tad.M.Blanchard.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>
> 9) security of rad material
> by "George Rawls" <george@pliny.ehs.ufl.edu>
> 10) Accident Consequences
> by "Gerry W. Kindred" <gwkindred@centerior.com>
> 11) Re: Radium Chemical Structure
> by "J. J. Rozental" <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>
> 12) Re: Accident Consequences
> by LIPTONW@detroitedison.com
> 13) Re: security of rad material
> by Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>
> 14) follow-up to food irradiation question
> by "Thatcher, Drew" <dht0303@hub.doh.wa.gov>
> 15) Re[2]: WARD VALLEY AND THE PAPER BY PROFESSOR HAYDEN OF NEBR
> by "Neil, David M" <NEILDM@inel.gov>
> 16) BEIR VI
> by Nancy Stanley <NSTANLEY@dep.state.nj.us>
> 17) Re: Accident Consequences
> by "dama" <dama@waterw.com>
> 18) Re: ALARA
> by Andy Hull <hull@mail.sep.bnl.gov>
> 19) Thoriated Tungsten Electrodes
> by "Flora, Jason" <jgf7@cdc.gov>
> 20) Re: food irradiation related question
> by Rrk099 <Rrk099@aol.com>
> 21) Thoriated Tungsten Electrodes -Reply
> by Harold Chaney <HDC@nrc.gov>
> 22) RE: Thoriated Tungsten Electrodes
> by Brent Rogers <brogers@mps.ohio-state.edu>
> 23) Re: food irradiation related question
> by Wes Van Pelt <VanPeltW@idt.net>
> 24) HPS Web Abstract Submissions
> by "Brett J. Burk" <BBurk@BurkInc.com>
> 25) Feb HP Journal TOC
> by Bruce Busby <bbusby@umich.edu>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:48:15 -0500
>From: Chris Alston <alstonc@odrge.odr.georgetown.edu>
>To: Medical Physics Mailing List <MEDPHYS@LISTS.WAYNE.EDU>
>Cc: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re: Why sterilize radioactive seeds?
>Message-ID: <2.2.16.19971215084119.1bef86b8@odrge.odr.georgetown.edu>
>
>Shouldn't prostate seeds be sterilized for the same reasons that the carrier
>needles should be, or a scalpel, or any other such instrument? The dose rate
>at the surface of the seed is not high enough to keep it in a sterile
>condition, if that is the implication of the question.
>
>chris alston
>
>At 11:10 12/13/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>> ** Mail from Medphys Listserver **
>>If you reply to this message, it will be posted on Medphys for all the
>>subscribers to review ...
>>
>>
>>Dear Listers,
>>
>>With the recent messages about radiation sterilization of meat, I got to
>>wondering, "Do we have to sterilize prostate seeds?"
>>
>>Could someone tell what's wrong with that idea?
>>
>>
>>Dr. Robert Herrick
>>robertherrick@mindspring.com
>>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:15:39 -0500
>From: "Howe, John" <Howej@NMRIPO.NMRI.NNMC.NAVY.MIL>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: RE: Why sterilize radioactive seeds?
>Message-ID:
<0E256B33287BD01191B500A0247B668C3A42BA@nmripo.nmri.nnmc.navy.mil>
>
>how do I unsubscribe to radsafe?
>
>> ----------
>> From: Chris Alston[SMTP:alstonc@odrge.odr.georgetown.edu]
>> Sent: Monday, December 15, 1997 8:44 AM
>> To: Multiple recipients of list
>> Subject: Re: Why sterilize radioactive seeds?
>>
>> Shouldn't prostate seeds be sterilized for the same reasons that the
>> carrier
>> needles should be, or a scalpel, or any other such instrument? The
>> dose rate
>> at the surface of the seed is not high enough to keep it in a sterile
>> condition, if that is the implication of the question.
>>
>> chris alston
>>
>> At 11:10 12/13/97 -0500, you wrote:
>> >
>> > ** Mail from Medphys Listserver **
>> >If you reply to this message, it will be posted on Medphys for all
>> the
>> >subscribers to review ...
>> >
>> >
>> >Dear Listers,
>> >
>> >With the recent messages about radiation sterilization of meat, I got
>> to
>> >wondering, "Do we have to sterilize prostate seeds?"
>> >
>> >Could someone tell what's wrong with that idea?
>> >
>> >
>> >Dr. Robert Herrick
>> >robertherrick@mindspring.com
>> >
>>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 10:16:41 -0500 (EST)
>From: Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Subject: Re: Recent LNT correspondence by Cohen and Scherer
>Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96L.971215101516.21429E-100000@unixs1.cis.pitt.edu>
>
>
>
>On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, John R Johnson wrote:
>
>> All readers
>>
>> I have been watching the discussion on LNT for many years, and the
two
>> recent postings are a useful addition to it.
>>
>> An added complication is that all these theory assume that all human
>> cancers have an equal probability of being producer by radiation.
This
>> has been show to be false. See NCRP Report No. 121 (Principles and
>> Application of Collective Dose in Radiation Protection) and ACRP-18
>> (Biological Effects of Low Doses of Radiation at Low Dose Rates).
>
> --I am not aware that this assumption has ever been made. It is
>obviously not a valid assumption.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 10:31:49 -0500 (EST)
>From: Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Subject: Resonse to Meinhold message on LNT
>Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96L.971215102423.21429F-100000@unixs1.cis.pitt.edu>
>
> TThe validity of LNT in the low dose region is a scientific
>question and should be considered in the light of the scientific evidence.
>There is now a mountain of evidence against it and I know of not a shred
>of evidence supporting it. If there is such evidence, why doesn't somebody
>cite it? That would make for a balanced discussion. Unless such evidence
>is cited, how can the NCRP position be characterized as "in the middle"?
> The only evidence cited favoring LNT is from a paper by Pierce
>based on A-bomb survivor data, but the statement in that paper is not at
>all supported by the evidence in that paper.
>
>Bernard L. Cohen
>Physics Dept.
>University of Pittsburgh
>Pittsburgh, PA 15260
>Tel: (412)624-9245
>Fax: (412)624-9163
>e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 07:56:02 -0800
>From: Judd Sills <sillsj@GAT.COM>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Obituary of Prominent Physician
>Message-ID: <3.0.4.16.19971215075602.0c0f6428@vaxd.gat.com>
>
>I saw an item this morning regarding the death (12/9/97) of Dr. Leonard
Sagan,
>a senior medical scientist with the Electric Power Research Institute
>(EPRI),
>from 1978 until his retirement in 1996. Dr. Sagan also served on the
>board of directors of the National Council on Radiation Protection and
>was a fellow of the American College of Physicians. He worked as a physician
>in nuclear medicine with the Atomic Energy Commission and directed research
>for the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission in Nagasaki, Japan.
>
>The full obituary may be seen on the San Francisco Chronicle website at the
>URL below. This is a long address, so be sure to copy the entire line into
>your browser.
>
>http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/chronicle/article.cgi?file=MN38281.DTL&dire
>ctory=/chronicle/archive/1997/12/12
>
>Best regards to all
>
>Judd M. Sills, CHP | Office: (619)455-2049
>General Atomics, Room 01-166C| Fax: (619)455-3181
>3550 General Atomics Court | E-Mail: sillsj@gat.com
>San Diego, CA 92121 |
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:34:06 +0000
>From: Scott Davidson <Scott.Davidson@EM.DOE.GOV>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Accelerator Health Physics
>Message-ID: <199712151646.LAA26030@doeem-bh.em.doe.gov>
>
> Digging through some boxes at home I found a copy of the book
> "Accelerator Health Physics" by Wade Patterson. It is in good
> condition.
>
> I have never worked in Accelerator HP and was wondering if someone had
> a better use for it than dust collecting. Respond to me privately at
> bsdnuke@aol.com
>
> Scott Davidson
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 97 9:22:46 -0800
>From: "Thatcher, Drew" <dht0303@hub.doh.wa.gov>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: food irradiation related question
>Message-ID: <4460953401F10600@smtp.hub.doh.wa.gov>
>
>An individual against food irridation and I have been trading "letters to
>the editor" in the Seattle PI. Her latest letter makes the statement
>that since E. coli is the cause of not just meat contamination but a
>number of fruits and vegetables (throught runoff, manure as fertilizer,
>cross contamination, etc.). As a result, meat irradiation alone will
>not solve the answer and a larger solution needs to be determined. The
>individual has mentioned a researcher from the University of Georgia who
>believes the answer may be in adding a benign, competitive bacteria to
>cattle feed to crowd out the detrimental bacteria.
>
>Does anyone have any further information about such a process?
>
>Sincerely,
>Andrew H. Thatcher, MSHP, CHP
>Washington Department of Health
>360-586-8715 voice
>360-753-1496 fax
>dht0303@hub.doh.wa.gov
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:25:15 -0500
>From: Tad Blanchard <Tad.M.Blanchard.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re: food irradiation related question
>Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19971215132515.0091f350@pop200.gsfc.nasa.gov>
>
>Andrew,
>
>Sounds like this would accomplish NOTHING. Adding the bacteria to the feed
>cannot possibly reduce the potential for E-Coli contamination from the meat
>processing plant, the grocery store or the home kitchen counter.
>
>
>
>At 11:23 AM 12/15/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>An individual against food irridation and I have been trading "letters to
>>the editor" in the Seattle PI. Her latest letter makes the statement
>>that since E. coli is the cause of not just meat contamination but a
>>number of fruits and vegetables (throught runoff, manure as fertilizer,
>>cross contamination, etc.). As a result, meat irradiation alone will
>>not solve the answer and a larger solution needs to be determined. The
>>individual has mentioned a researcher from the University of Georgia who
>>believes the answer may be in adding a benign, competitive bacteria to
>>cattle feed to crowd out the detrimental bacteria.
>>
>>Does anyone have any further information about such a process?
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>Andrew H. Thatcher, MSHP, CHP
>>Washington Department of Health
>>360-586-8715 voice
>>360-753-1496 fax
>>dht0303@hub.doh.wa.gov
>>
>>
>>
>************************** /^\ /^\ ***********************************
>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: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:28:19 EST
>From: "George Rawls" <george@pliny.ehs.ufl.edu>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: security of rad material
>Message-ID: <6EC3B8D39FC@pliny.ehs.ufl.edu>
>
>At various times in this university research setting, private
>contractors may be hired to perform functions which require their
>entry into authorized use areas which store radioactive material,
>sealed and unsealed sources. These contracts are usually set up by
>Physical Plant and are sometimes performed at night and on weekends
>when the labs are locked and unattended.
>
>I am speaking here of the entry by private contractor personnel into
>these labs when the labs are unattended(night and weekend). Since
>many , if not most of these labs rely only upon the locked outer
>door(s) for security of rad material, the question is:
>
>In light of the NRC security regulations, should these contractor
>personnel be allowed unescorted entry into these storage/use areas?
>
>There are two views here:
>
>1. Train them to stay away from posted areas and don't touch anything
>in those areas and let them go unescorted.
>
>2. You can train for radiation protection but you can't train for
>security concerns. These contractor personnel must be accompanied
>into the areas of concern by a university employee due to security
>regs.
>
>I hope for a good response to this since I suspect that
>there are varying views out there for diferent security scenarios. I
>will be glad to summarize the answers later if anyone calls upon me
>to do so.
>George Rawls
>University of Florida
>Health Physicist
>george@pliny.ehs.ufl.edu
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:40:15 -0500
>From: "Gerry W. Kindred" <gwkindred@centerior.com>
>To: <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Subject: Accident Consequences
>Message-ID: <199712151946.OAA23242@CSCSW.CENTERIOR.COM>
>
>If a change was made to your facility that required an
>operator action to mitigate the consequence of an
>accident. Would the operator dose required to perfom
>the action (in itself) be considered an increase in the
>consequence of the accident?
>
>gwkindred@FirstEnergyCorp.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 21:01:06 +0200 (IST)
>From: "J. J. Rozental" <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re: Radium Chemical Structure
>Message-ID: <199712151901.VAA12259@alpha.netvision.net.il>
>
>At 07:51 AM 12/12/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>Hi Radsafers:
>>
>>Several years ago an incident at a storage facility for old radium
>>formerly used in dial painting resulted in a fire related incident.
>>
>>Does anyone out there have a source of information on the chemical
>>structure of the dial painting medium? Was this medium soluable in
>>water used to fight the fire? Any information on resulting personnel
>>and environmental contamination would be appreciated - or just a
>>source where I could find information on this incident.
>>
>>Believe this incident occurred in the northeast U.S.
>
>
>>
>>Thanks for any assistance. Please reply directly to my attached
>>address.
>>
>>James H. Ogden, Jr., Emergency Planner
>>WIPP Transportation Project
>>INTERNET Address (jogden@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us)
>>(512) 834-6688 ext 2041
>>(512) 834-6654 FAX
>>
>============================
>I have no register in EEUU about an fire accident in an installation
>containing Ra-226 source. In USA, There were some accidental smelting of
>radioactive sources containing Ra-226. One of the the best Institution to
>obtain information is the Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training
>Site (REAC/TS), Oak Ridge. For information on REAC/TS, mailto:
><pescep@orau.gov>
>
>One source for information about old spent sources containing Ra-226 is:
>A Review of Radium Incidents in the United States of America, Proceedings of
>a Symposium on Handling of Radiation Accidents, Willforth, J.C., Robinson,
>E.W., Wold, G.J., IAEA, Vienna 19/23 May 1969
>
>J. J. Rozental <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>
>Israel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: 15 Dec 97 14:14:52 -0500
>From: LIPTONW@detroitedison.com
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re: Accident Consequences
>Message-ID: <9712151916.AA07572@w>
>
>
>You wrote:
>
>If a change was made to your facility that required an
>operator action to mitigate the consequence of an
>accident. Would the operator dose required to perfom
>the action (in itself) be considered an increase in the
>consequence of the accident?
>
>gwkindred@FirstEnergyCorp.com
>
>There are two parts to this:
>
>(1) Generally, the radiological consequences of 10CFR50.59 refer to offsite
>dose. Operator dose is a factor, however, if it impedes accident mitigating
>actions, eg., the increase in dose rate renders an area inaccessible or
>reduces stay time below that required to perform the needed actions.
>
>(2) The reliance on operator actions instead of automatic actions as a
result
>of the proposed change may, in itself be an unreviewed safety question. See
>NRC Information Notice 97-78, "Crediting of Operator Actions in Place of
>Automatic Actions and Modifications of Operator Actions, Including Response
>Times".
>
>The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
>It's not about dose, it's about trust.
>
>Bill Lipton
>liptonw@detroitedison.com
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: 15 Dec 1997 12:26:42 -0700
>From: Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (IPM Return requested) (Receipt
notification requested),
>Subject: Re: security of rad material
>
>
> Our experience at Western Washington University was that most
> cotractor personnel should not have unescorted access to any
> laboratories. In fact, undergrad students probably shouldn't have it
> either. At least some authorized person should be in the building,
> preferably on the same floor. I have certainly always restricted
> access to my own laboratory. This is for more than just rad security
> -- we had some very bad experiences (thefts, several electronic
> balances were broken, etc.)
>
> Ruth Weiner
> Sandia National Labs
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: security of rad material
>Author: george@pliny.ehs.ufl.edu at hubsmtp
>Date: 12/15/97 11:34 AM
>
>
>At various times in this university research setting, private
>contractors may be hired to perform functions which require their
>entry into authorized use areas which store radioactive material,
>sealed and unsealed sources. These contracts are usually set up by
>Physical Plant and are sometimes performed at night and on weekends
>when the labs are locked and unattended.
>
>I am speaking here of the entry by private contractor personnel into
>these labs when the labs are unattended(night and weekend). Since
>many , if not most of these labs rely only upon the locked outer
>door(s) for security of rad material, the question is:
>
>In light of the NRC security regulations, should these contractor
>personnel be allowed unescorted entry into these storage/use areas?
>
>There are two views here:
>
>1. Train them to stay away from posted areas and don't touch anything
>in those areas and let them go unescorted.
>
>2. You can train for radiation protection but you can't train for
>security concerns. These contractor personnel must be accompanied
>into the areas of concern by a university employee due to security
>regs.
>
>I hope for a good response to this since I suspect that
>there are varying views out there for diferent security scenarios. I
>will be glad to summarize the answers later if anyone calls upon me
>to do so.
>George Rawls
>University of Florida
>Health Physicist
>george@pliny.ehs.ufl.edu
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 97 11:42:27 -0800
>From: "Thatcher, Drew" <dht0303@hub.doh.wa.gov>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: follow-up to food irradiation question
>Message-ID: <3D7C953401F10600@smtp.hub.doh.wa.gov>
>
> There appears to be enough questions about the viability of this
>particular issue that I contacted Dr. Michael Doyle (the researcher) at
>the U of Ga directly. A summary of his work plus some answers other
>questions are as follows:
>
>The cattle digestive tract contains many strains of bacteria, only one of
>which is a serious pathogen for humans, the 0157 strain. The bacterial
>breakdown of cellulose is a significant source of energy for herbivorous
>animals. In calve feedlot studies Dr. Doyle was able to completely
>remove the bad 0157 strain in a matter of a few weeks (the benign strain
>apparently attacks the 0157 strain). He indicated that the reseach
>needed to continue to investigate a number of issues. As far as cost of
>implementation he believed it would cost very little. By eliminating the
>harmful strain early in the process, it would (in theory) remove the
>problem in the processing plant, the home, etc.
>
>Not knowing anything more about this than what I have learned today, it
>would seem that this merits further research as a possible solution to a
>problem. Food irradiation may still offer other advantages as it would
>remove other contaminants in the process as well. I hope all interested
>found this addtional bit of information useful.
>
>Regards/ Drew Thatcher
>
> ***** Original Message Follows *****
>
>At 11:23 AM 12/15/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>An individual against food irridation and I have been trading "letters
>to
>>the editor" in the Seattle PI. Her latest letter makes the statement
>>that since E. coli is the cause of not just meat contamination but a
>>number of fruits and vegetables (throught runoff, manure as fertilizer,
>>cross contamination, etc.). As a result, meat irradiation alone will
>>not solve the answer and a larger solution needs to be determined. The
>
>>individual has mentioned a researcher from the University of Georgia who
>
>>believes the answer may be in adding a benign, competitive bacteria to
>>cattle feed to crowd out the detrimental bacteria.
>
>I am no expert, but I thought e-coli was a necessary bacteria for the
>digestion of food by cattle. If you were to introduce a benign bacteria
>to
>the feed wouldn't you be causing the cattle a few problems? It seems to
>me
>that cattle are perfectly happy with e-coli in their system.
>
>The key to the whole irradiation debate seems to be that irradiation
>won't
>solve all the problems. Who cares? If it solves some of the problems
>and
>doesn't cause any new ones it's better than not doing anything.
>
>Todd Maxwell, RRPT
>The Scripps Research Institute
>Environmental Health and Safety
>10550 North Torrey Pines Road
>La Jolla, Calif. 92037
>toddmax@scripps.edu
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: 15 Dec 1997 13:22:13 MDT
>From: "Neil, David M" <NEILDM@inel.gov>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re[2]: WARD VALLEY AND THE PAPER BY PROFESSOR HAYDEN OF NEBR
>Message-ID: <CCMAILAN.NEILDM.510722130097349FCCMAILAN@INEL.GOV>
>
> I'll have to second that. A bit over a century ago, there was a great
> deal of unpleasantness over the Federal government infringing on
> State's Rights. One of my distant relatives ended up losing his
> property as a result; the government made a cemetery out of it.
>
> And State's Rights was the major issue; the change in employment
> conditions for those of us who received a tan as a birthday present
> was one of several side issues.
>
> Dave Neil
> neildm@inel.gov
> maclir@if.rmci.net
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: RE: WARD VALLEY AND THE PAPER BY PROFESSOR HAYDEN OF NEBRAS
>Author: RADSAFE (INELMAIL.RADSAFE) at _EMS
>Date: 12/11/97 10:52 AM
>
>
>While Dave Scherer makes some good points, imagine the political
>ramifications IF the federal government initiated such an action! We'd
>have Ruby Ridges in most parts of the country! The states sovereignty
>can not be over-stepped by the federales. The states are required to
>manage their own territories, and, are bound to protect their own
>constituents to the best of their ability, and based on their own
>needs and assumptions. While we may not disagree, there are certain
>states rights that must be followed, and accepted, whether or not we
>agree or disagree with them.
>
>------------------
>Sandy Perle
>Technical Director
>ICN Dosimetry Division
>Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>Office: (800) 548-5100 x2306
>Fax: (714) 668-3111
>
>sandyfl@ix.netcom.com
>sperle@icnpharm.com
>
>ICN Dosimetry Website:
>http://www.dosimetry.com
>
>Personal Homepage:
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205
>
>"The object of opening the mind, as of opening
>the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
> - G. K. Chesterton -
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:12:55 -0500
>From: Nancy Stanley <NSTANLEY@dep.state.nj.us>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: BEIR VI
>Message-ID: <s49557e7.090@dep.state.nj.us>
>
>Greetings Radsafers,
>
>Does anyone have a best estimate (or has anyone heard
>definitively) of when the BEIR VI report is due out? The latest I
>have heard is sometime in January. Thanks in advance for
>anything I can add to the due date rumor mill!
>
>Nancy Stanley {nstanley@dep.state.nj.us}
>NJ Department of Environmental Protection
>Radiation Protection Programs
>PO Box 415
>Trenton, NJ 08625-0415
>(609) 984-5452
>http://www.state.nj.us/dep/rpp
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:22:23 +0000
>From: "dama" <dama@waterw.com>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re: Accident Consequences
>Message-ID: <199712152125.QAA14653@water.waterw.com>
>
>Excellent question. I was recently a member of a Station Operation
>Review Committee (SORC) that was reviewing a change to the facility
>that would require an operator to reposition a ventilation damper in
>the event that one train of control room ventilation became
>inoperable.
>
>The limiting case was that the control room ventilation became
>inoperable after a design basis accident that threatened GDC 19
>criteria. The TEDE for the operator to perform this action was
>approximately 25 - 50 mrem.
>
>SORC concluded that an Unreviewed Safety Question (USQ) did not exist
>because: 1) this action did not increase the consequences of
>an accident since equipment operator actions are part of a licensee's
>emergency response, 2) the action ensured that GDC 19 dose limits
>were not exceeded, and 3) the operator's TEDE was a small
>fraction of the annual limits (emergency dose limits not invoked).
>
>I'm replying from home so I don't have the references I would at
>work. I believe that there is guidance in NSAC 125 for similar
>issues.
>
>> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:43:26 -0600 (CST)
>> Reply-to: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>> From: "Gerry W. Kindred" <gwkindred@centerior.com>
>> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>> Subject: Accident Consequences
>
>> If a change was made to your facility that required an
>> operator action to mitigate the consequence of an
>> accident. Would the operator dose required to perfom
>> the action (in itself) be considered an increase in the
>> consequence of the accident?
>>
>> gwkindred@FirstEnergyCorp.com
>>
>>
>Dave Ruyter
>
>dama@waterw.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:33:45 -0500
>From: Andy Hull <hull@mail.sep.bnl.gov>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re: ALARA
>Message-ID: <3.0.16.19971215172600.25afb3fe@mail.sep.bnl.gov>
>
>For what it may be worth in the consideration of ALARA, my recollection is
>that when it was first proposed in the early 1970s draft Appendix I in
>general terms, a number of utilities objected that it was too vague. So
>in response the NRC came up with specific numerical values for ALARA in the
>context of doses from routine releases from power reactors. In my
>recollection, this was the first regulatory definition of ALARA.
>
>
>
>
>At 02:58 PM 12/10/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>My long-term memory (which is frequently very foggy) tells
>>me that ALARA was adopted, not introduced, by NRC. Years
>>ago I was on a NCRP committee drafting a report on ALARA in
>>health care. Everyone was complaining about NRC
>>misinterpreting the ICRP's term, especially trying to make
>>what was intended as a voluntary program into a mandatory
>>one. In any event, the committee put together
>>recommendations for a purely voluntary program to reduce
>>unnecessary occupational exposure, with the emphasis on the
>>R, not the ALAA. I still consider such a program as
>>proper. Any regulatory use of ALARA completely changes its
>>meaning, making it effectively a reduced dose limit. That
>>is not what anybody (except a few regulators) had in mind.
>>
>>****************************************************************
>>S. Julian Gibbs, DDS, PhD Voice: 615-322-3190
>>Professor of Radiology FAX: 615-322-3764
>>Dept. of Radiology & Radiological Sciences
>>Vanderbilt University Medical Center
>>Nashville TN 37232-2670 Email: s.julian.gibbs@Vanderbilt.Edu
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:14:00 -0500
>From: "Flora, Jason" <jgf7@cdc.gov>
>To: "'radsafe-post'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Subject: Thoriated Tungsten Electrodes
>Message-ID: <199712152218.RAA01619@mailgate2.cdc.gov>
>
>Hello Radsurfers!
>
>I would like to know why Thorium (Th-232) is used in
>tungsten electrodes during arc welding ?
>
>Have other elements (actinides?) been used to
>replace thorium in electrodes?
>
>A short abstract on this subject was written by
>Crim et al in the June 1993 Health Physics Journal
>(Vol 64, S85).
>
>The author lists the advantages of Th as:
>easier arc starting, reduced weld contamination, and
>greater stability.
>
>Any other information on this topic would be of interest
>to me, Thank you,
>
> Jason Flora
> Cinc OH
>(Comments are those of the author and not my
>employers)
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:42:46 EST
>From: Rrk099 <Rrk099@aol.com>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re: food irradiation related question
>Message-ID: <6bd38941.3495b26a@aol.com>
>
>Radsafers,
>
>A long time ago I was a practicing biologist (Ph.D) and without digging up
>exact references, the woman who wants to add benign bacteria to cattle feed
>SHOULD go back and dig up exact references. E. coli is part of the natural
>gut flora and fauna (humans and a myriad of other vertebrate species as
well).
>First, it cannot be replaced by a "benign" species (whatever that is);
second,
>IF it could, I'm sure the host organism would not be very happy.
>
>Bob Kulikowski
>
>PS - Glad to see NYC is not the only harbor for persons with such thoughts.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 19:21:55 -0500
>From: Harold Chaney <HDC@nrc.gov>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Thoriated Tungsten Electrodes -Reply
>Message-ID: <s495810f.008@nrcsmtp.nrc.gov>
>
>Jason, I am not an expert in this area but have been around welders for
most of my
>life. Normally thoriated tungsten tips are used in TIG welding as an
electrode and
>not as in "Arc" welders where the electrode is consumed during the
welding/filling.
>Inert gas welding normally has the filler material provided separate from the
>electrode and the electrode is used to puddle the metal to be fused/welded
>together. The thorium is used for its heat resistance properties which
causes the
>electrode to resists melting. All other properties you cited are
corrected as long as
>the TIG electrode is kept pointed.
>
>H. Dean Chaney, CHP - USNRC, Region IV/WCFO
>hdc@nrc.gov
>ddchaney@castles.com
>
>The views put forth above are my own and do not necessarily
>reflect the beliefs or policies of the USNRC or any other
>governmental entity, or maybe some welders.
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 20:12:08 -0500
>From: Brent Rogers <brogers@mps.ohio-state.edu>
>To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Subject: RE: Thoriated Tungsten Electrodes
>Message-ID: <01BD0995.EE64C340.brogers@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>
>
>In lighting, they dope the tungsten with thorium because it lowers the work
>function, meaning that the binding energy of the outer shell electron(s) is
>lower (photoelectric effect), than with pure tungsten. It's just a guess,
>but the same physical properties may be useful in welding, as well.
>
>Brent Rogers
>mailto: brogers@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
>
>Hello Radsurfers!
>
>I would like to know why Thorium (Th-232) is used in
>tungsten electrodes during arc welding ?
>
>Have other elements (actinides?) been used to
>replace thorium in electrodes?
>
>A short abstract on this subject was written by
>Crim et al in the June 1993 Health Physics Journal
>(Vol 64, S85).
>
>The author lists the advantages of Th as:
>easier arc starting, reduced weld contamination, and
>greater stability.
>
>Any other information on this topic would be of interest
>to me, Thank you,
>
> Jason Flora
> Cinc OH
>(Comments are those of the author and not my
>employers)
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 22:05:47 -0500
>From: Wes Van Pelt <VanPeltW@idt.net>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re: food irradiation related question
>Message-ID: <3495F00B.188CDA27@idt.net>
>
>Tad Blanchard wrote:
>>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Sounds like this would accomplish NOTHING. Adding the bacteria to the feed
>> cannot possibly reduce the potential for E-Coli contamination from the meat
>> processing plant, the grocery store or the home kitchen counter.
>>
>
>Ted and All,
>
>I think the idea is to substitute a strain of E-Coli or other bacteria
>in the guts of cattle which is less toxic to humans. The benign strain
>would replace the native E-Coli in animals. I do not know if it would
>work, but it sounds possible.
>
>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: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 05:42:23 -0500
>From: "Brett J. Burk" <BBurk@BurkInc.com>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: HPS Web Abstract Submissions
>Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19971215054223.0076bdcc@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>
>
>Dear Radsafers:
>
>Please note that after a brief delay, the HPS Web Site is now accepting
>abstract submissions for the 1998 Annual Meeting. The deadline for
>submission is 23 January 1998.
>
>http://www.hps.org/cfpam98.html
>
>Take care.
>
>Brett J. Burk
>HPS Society Headquarters
>BBurk@BurkInc.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 21:19:16 -0500 (est)
>From: Bruce Busby <bbusby@umich.edu>
>To: journal toc <dmhamby@umich.edu>, jspeaker@smtp-gwy.wwilkins.com,
>Subject: Feb HP Journal TOC
>Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.3.96.971215211035.-3197351A-100000@bbusby.umich.edu>
>
>Hi all,
>
>Here is the Feb Health Physics Journal Table of Contents.
>
>Happy holidays to all!
>
>Bruce Busby
>Health Physics Journal: http://www.wwilkins.com/health_physics/
>
>
>---------------fwd-------------------------------------
>
>
>HEALTH PHYSICS
>Schedule of Contents
>Volume 74, No. 2, February 1998
>
>
>On the cover: Computer graphics of radioactivity in the annual rings of a
>pine tree near Chernobyl. See article by Nakajima et al. on page 265 for
>more information.
>
>__________________________________________________________
>REVIEW PAPERS
>
>Data Quality and Validation of Radiological
>Assessment Models.
>S.-R. Peterson and T.B. Kirchner Page - 147
>
>__________________________________________________________
>NEWS ON THE NET
>
>
>State Radiation Control Agencies On-Line
>Bruce Busby Page - 158
>
>__________________________________________________________
>PAPERS
>
>Differences in Energy Absorption Between
>Heads of Adults and Children in the Near Field
>of Sources
>Frank Schnborn, Michael Burkhardt and Niels
>Kuster Page - 160
>
>Reflection of Ultraviolet Radiation from Different
>Skin Types
>A. Cader and J. Jankowski Page - 169
>
>Cancer Genes and Risk Assessment
>K. Doerffer and P. Unrau Page - 173
>
>Primary Shielding Barriers for Diagnostic X-Ray
>Facilities: A New Model
>Robert L. Dixon and Douglas J. Simpkin Page - 181
>
>A Risk Based Methodology for Assessing the
>Efficacy and Priorities for the Control of Various
>Radon Sources
>William P. Dornsife and Ajit Bhattacharyya Page - 190
>
>Monte Carlo Based Method for Conversion of In-Situ
> Gamma Ray Spectra Obtained with a Portable Ge
>Detector to an Incident Photon Flux Energy
>Distribution
>A. Clouvas, S. Xanthos, M. Antonopoulos-Domis,
>and J. Silva Page - 216
>
>The Influence of Traffic Vibrations on the Radon
>Potential
>Simone Schmid and Jens Wiegand Page - 231
>
>An Evaluation of 222Rn Concentrations in Idaho
>Groundwater
>L. R. Paulus, T. F. Gesell, and R. R. Brey Page - 237
>
>Temporal and Spatial Variation of Waterborne
>Point-of-Use 222Rn in Three Water Distribution
>Systems
>Eileen L. Fisher, Laurence J. Fuortes, Johannes
>Ledolter, D. J. Steck, and R. William Field Page - 242
>
>Iowa Survey of Waterborne 222Rn Concentrations in
>Private Wells
>R. William Field and Burton C. Kross Page - 249
>
>14CO2-in-Air Sampling with Passive Diffusion
>Samplers
>M. J. Wood, R. A. Surette, J. K. Mohindra,
>and J. G. Patterson
>Page - 253
>
>__________________________________________________________
>OPERATIONAL TOPICS
>
>Managing Metabolic Model Deficiencies for
>Routine Radiation Protection Purposes at a
>Thorium Dioxide Facility
>C. D. Berger, A. B. Kelly, and C. Venezia Page - 259
>
>__________________________________________________________
>CORRESPONDENCE
>
>Use of Thermography in Diagnosis of Local
>Radiation Injuries
>G. J. Kteles, I. Benk, and G. Nmeth Page - 264
>
>Response to Kteles et al.
>M. E. Berger, R. Hurtado, and R. C. Ricks Page - 265
>
>Radionuclides Carved on the Annual
>Rings of a Tree Near Chernobyl
>Hiroo Nakajima, Haruko Ryo, Taisei Nomura,
>Tadashi Saito, Yoshiaki Yamaguchi,
>and Klavdiya G. Yeliseeva Page - 265
>
>Low-Dose Cost/Benefit Assessment--A View
>from Europe
>Klaus Becker Page - 267
>
>Health Physics Spinoff: Health Chemistry
>Thomas M. Rea Page - 271
>
>__________________________________________________________
>BOOK REVIEWS
>
>Radiation Therapy Physics
>Reviewed by K. J. Kearfott Page - 272
>
>Characterization of Radioactive Waste Forms
>and Packages
>Reviewed by Lawrence E. Boing Page - 273
>
>History of the International Atomic Energy
>Agency-The First Forty Years
>Reviewed by Donald G. Jacobs Page - 273
>
>__________________________________________________________
>OTHER CONTENT
>
>Erratum Page - 274
>News and Notices
>Instructions for Submission of New Product Announcements
>Instructions to Contributors
>Health Physics Society Prospectus
>Health Physics Society Affiliate Members
>Advertisers Guide
>Advertisers Index
>Up and Coming
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of RADSAFE Digest 1651
>**************************
>