```Dear Mr. Lambert

follow:

"Would you go shopping in an area where 1 out of 10 cars in the
parking lot were stolen?  Even though the chances are that they
would not take your car, given a choice you would probably shop
somewhere else. Would you take a trip to a foreign land if only 95
out of each hundred people that made the trip survived terrorist
attacks? No, another vacation location would be selected.  Would you
go swimming at the shore (that's what they call the beach in the
northeast) if 1 in a 1000 (0.001) swimmers were attacked by sharks
(that would be maybe 50 mutilated bodies per weekend along the NJ
shore)?  I doubt it, even though the shark would probably find
someone else more tasty.

I suggest that the severity of the outcome affects whether a risk
of 0.1% is intuitively zero."

But I am sure that you clearly realize that the risk of chronic exposure
to low level radiation (or majority of the contaminants) is categorized
as an stochastic effect  (a probabilistic effect) and not as a
deterministic effect, which you describe.  When it is said that the risk
is 1.0E-03 it just means the probability of effect due to the cause
could be  observed one out of 1000! It does not mean that definitely
will be observed.

Also I am sure you know that when a risk value is determined it always
has some confidence interval and uncertainty associated with it.  This
risk value has to be considered with the proper interpretation of other
variables (such as confidence interval and uncertainty associated with
the number).

In addition the risk due to radiation is an incremental risk above
background.  In most cases in the environmental or D&D areas measuring
the incremental risk above the background is very hard, especially if
one considers the limit of uncertainty associated with the risk factors
(or slope factors) and methodology used to arrive at risk values.   Also
you surly agree with me there is nothing that we do in this world that
has a risk value of "0".  As a matter of fact every day human take many
risks that are far above the 0.001 and they will take those risks
willingly (driving a car, crossing  streets, smoking cigarettes, and
etc.).  This reminds me of an article I wrote few years "Risk, Putting
Numbers in Perspective."   Therefore as professionals in the field of
radiation protection we definitely have a responsibility to communicate
the risk values associated with the radiation to the members of public
most appropriately and accurately with a sound scientific basis.
Regards,

Mahmoud H. Haghighi,Ph.D.
Senior Nuclear Physicist
BEI, Oak Ridge, TN
Tel  423  220-2288
Fax  423 220-2976 or 2108
email  MHHAGHIG@BECHTEL.COM

>-----Original Message-----
>Sent:	Tuesday, April 14, 1998 9:19 PM
>To:	Multiple recipients of list
>
>
>Topics covered in this issue include:
>
>  1) RE: Uranium in hair
>	by rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu (Ron L. Kathren)
>  2) RE: Uranium in hair
>	by "James G. Barnes" <mail15077@pop.net>
>  3) Re: PET Doses
>	by carol marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu>
>  4) Re: uranium in hair
>	by Weihua Zhang <zhangw@is2.dal.ca>
>  5) Re: The Friendly Atom
>	by Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>
>  6) Re: Nat. Geo. CDROM
>	by Andrew Karam <karam.1@osu.edu>
>  7) Re: The Friendly Atom
>	by "Kent N. Lambert" <lambert@auhs.edu>
>  8) Tritium Contamination Detectors
>	by "Doerr, Lawrence" <DoerrL@ria.army.mil>
>  9) Re: Tritium Contamination Detectors
>	by David.Norman@waii.com
> 10) iodine uptake in thyroid
>	by "Thatcher, Drew" <dht0303@hub.doh.wa.gov>
> 11) Bactec
>	by "Wil van der Putten" <wilvdp@tinet.ie>
> 12) Re: Tritium Contamination Detectors
>	by sbrightwell@shepmill.com (Shane Brightwell)
> 13) Tritium Contamination Detectors -Reply
>	by Robert Monsalve-Jones (Robert Monsalve-Jones) <RMonsalveJones@ITCRP.COM>
> 14) Re: iodine uptake in thyroid
>	by Jocelyn Towson <jtowson@nucmed.rpa.cs.nsw.gov.au>
> 15) TERMINOLOGY FOR UNCERTAINTY
>	by "Fritz A. Seiler" <faseiler@nmia.com>
> 16) Fetal Dose Calculation Workbook
>	by stabin@esper.com (Mike Stabin)
> 17) Re: The Friendly Atom
>	by Holloway3 <Holloway3@aol.com>
> 18) Re[2]: The Friendly Atom
>	by Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 11:22:53 -0700
>From: rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu (Ron L. Kathren)
>Subject: RE: Uranium in hair
>Message-ID: <9804141822.AA04315@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
>
>Jim --
>
>Heavy metals (eg Hg) are typically excreted in the hair.  There have been a
>number of papers and symposia devoted to trace metals in hair analysis.
>Following an acute intake, the concentration in the hair goes up and then
>drops off.  It is possible using appropriate analytical methods to determine
>the variation in concentration of a heavy metal along the length of a hair.
>This can provide an indication of when an exposure occurred if the ratge of
>hair growth is known or can be reasonably estimated.  There are many
>interferences and contaminants, notably Se which is present in many dandruff
>shampoos.  U, which is ubiquitous in our environment is another possible
>contaminant.  U in human tissues normally runs from a few tenth of a ng/g to
>several ng/g.
>
>Ron Kathren, Director
>US Transuranium and Uranium Registries
>
>
> The amount of m At 11:40 AM 4/14/98 -0500, James G. Barnes wrote:
>>
>>------ =_NextPart_000_01BD6787.80077460
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>>Good morning,
>>
>>We had a spate of "uranium in hair" events here, also.
>>
>>The other postings summarize what we were able to determine about the =
>>issue.  However, one of the toxicologists mentioned that they frequently =
>>use hair analysis in order to determine any "historical" exposure to =
>>heavy metals.
>>
>>To expand the discussion a bit, does anyone know how reliable this =
>>testing is?
>>
>>Jim Barnes, CHP
>>Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power / Boeing
>>mail15077@pop.net
>>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 11:32:56 -0700
>From: "James G. Barnes" <mail15077@pop.net>
>Subject: RE: Uranium in hair
>Message-ID: <01BD6799.41DEF570@ex055921.rdyne.bna.boeing.com>
>
>
>------ =_NextPart_000_01BD6799.41DEF570
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Thanks, Ron.
>
>Jim
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Ron L. Kathren [SMTP:rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu]
>Sent:	Tuesday, April 14, 1998 11:28 AM
>To:	Multiple recipients of list
>Subject:	RE: Uranium in hair
>
>Jim --
>
>Heavy metals (eg Hg) are typically excreted in the hair.  There have been a
>number of papers and symposia devoted to trace metals in hair analysis.
>Following an acute intake, the concentration in the hair goes up and then
>drops off.  It is possible using appropriate analytical methods to determine
>the variation in concentration of a heavy metal along the length of a hair.
>This can provide an indication of when an exposure occurred if the ratge of
>hair growth is known or can be reasonably estimated.  There are many
>interferences and contaminants, notably Se which is present in many dandruff
>shampoos.  U, which is ubiquitous in our environment is another possible
>contaminant.  U in human tissues normally runs from a few tenth of a ng/g to
>several ng/g.
>
>Ron Kathren, Director
>US Transuranium and Uranium Registries
>
>
> The amount of m At 11:40 AM 4/14/98 -0500, James G. Barnes wrote:
>>
>>------ =_NextPart_000_01BD6787.80077460
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>>Good morning,
>>
>>We had a spate of "uranium in hair" events here, also.
>>
>>The other postings summarize what we were able to determine about the =
>>issue.  However, one of the toxicologists mentioned that they frequently =
>>use hair analysis in order to determine any "historical" exposure to =
>>heavy metals.
>>
>>To expand the discussion a bit, does anyone know how reliable this =
>>testing is?
>>
>>Jim Barnes, CHP
>>Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power / Boeing
>>mail15077@pop.net
>>
>
>
>
>------ =_NextPart_000_01BD6799.41DEF570
>Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
>
>AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAAVwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAHJhZHNhZmVAcm9tdWx1
>cy5laHMudWl1Yy5lZHUAU01UUAByYWRzYWZlQHJvbXVsdXMuZWhzLnVpdWMuZWR1AAAeAAIwAQAA
>AAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AAzABAAAAHQAAAHJhZHNhZmVAcm9tdWx1cy5laHMudWl1Yy5lZHUAAAAA
>JwAAAgELMAEAAAAiAAAAU01UUDpSQURTQUZFQFJPTVVMVVMuRUhTLlVJVUMuRURVAAAAAwAAOQAA
>AAALAEA6AQAAAB4A9l8BAAAAHQAAAHJhZHNhZmVAcm9tdWx1cy5laHMudWl1Yy5lZHUAAAAAAgH3
>XwEAAABXAAAAAAAAAIErH6S+oxAZnW4A3QEPVAIAAAAAcmFkc2FmZUByb211bHVzLmVocy51aXVj
>LmVkdQBTTVRQAHJhZHNhZmVAcm9tdWx1cy5laHMudWl1Yy5lZHUAAAMA/V8BAAAAAwD/XwAAAAAC
>AfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAAC+XABBIABABQAAABSRTogVXJhbml1bSBpbiBoYWlyAI0GAQWAAwAOAAAA
>MEM1RDNEMTExQjBBODAwQzBERkUxMEJFRQBaBwEDkAYAOAkAACIAAAALAAIAAQAAAAsAIwAAAAAA
>RTogVXJhbml1bSBpbiBoYWlyAAIBcQABAAAAFgAAAAG9Z9O+H0D53mnTxRHRsKgAwN/hC+4AAB4A
>OwMABxCBBQAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAAVEhBTktTLFJPTkpJTS0tLS0tT1JJR0lOQUxNRVNTQUdFLS0t
>LS1GUk9NOlJPTkxLQVRIUkVOU01UUDpSS0FUSFJFTkBUUklDSVRZV1NVRURVU0VOVDpUVUVTREFZ
>LEFQUklMMQAAAAACAQkQAQAAABAGAAAMBgAAFwkAAExaRnXwzQQ/dwAKAQMB9yACpAPjAgBjgmgK
>wHNldDAgBxOHAoMAUA72cHJxMg/2Jn0KgAjIIDsJbzI1ZjUCgAqBdWMAUAsDYwMAQQtgbmcxMDMz
>CQumIFQPgG5rcyy5B/FuLgqiCoQKgEoHcIcXKhcoCzBsaTM2AUCnFRABQBFAb3QFkHQQhFAxNiAt
>BmACMCBnVApQc2RhenkWwEERQAMRHtAWwDGIOTk4JhAxOjImkCRBTSPXVG8gZ011xGx0BSBsZSAJ
>cCMAjnAIkAIwBCBvZiAZkMZzGpAj53ViahpxIGggRTogVXIAcGl1lG0gC4AgD4BpchzfPx3qGZQL
>theWGyEXKkhlsGF2eSAHgAGQbAQgAChlZyBIZykgrwrAKOAjIClAYwdAbDFA/GV4BQAPwAmALGIh
>gCjgXyyiIUAWUQSQNBJ2KOBi9wnhMkAXJG4sQDVQBcApsb0KsHAEkAQgAHAzoHMGwKRwbwCQYSAB
>AHYaUdkzoHRvMoAsAGMo4DFlVyx1NxEHQHkAkHMXFUY/BvAJAAPwFXA3ETJAY3XnGmAsYQGQa2UW
>wDPyBaB+bjjQAjAsACigIQEzySDkZ28HkXVwNxMz8QuQVRczZANgcCmSZjRxSX8FQAQANqA3oACQ
>AmAo4HX7AJA7UnAaMSXRIXAo4Dnz9yigMtExUmgEcAQgOHEBAGkaYHJtC4BlFyQz8nb/CsBCUT11
>Pz9BO3IzMDeRCHAo4G9j/TvAcglxLGApwDPyPUEcYG8poRckPiQDYHdI0UDBa35uOyBGwQXASlI1
>UCjxYX5zAiABoDMCKgAHcEJhZHc0dzJSA4F5FyQ8EQSQZv80wTzxNwQ80QGQRFEAcCmA/xbAUBAB
>kTMBBmBMESLwT7N/EUAHkCRxLGJTEjfgNyFy9nUBIBckcw+AN4E3oDRxjlUWwFZnKsBpcXUjEG8I
>YDlTCGEzIG5KwANgbv8HgFdCNwIaUDSxQOcXJFTZ/1lSLGMsQAORKKAEECVBVaH/REAy41gwBjED
>UkcBVAAH4K8aYAIwSOUVcC9IMW9Ydf84AASQG+FiAiFAFyog8iFlvRbARCzAGnEFsBckVQXwvlQs
>AUzhLBQ3Iiv2UjHg/ynxCIEPQBgvNJIyQARgYGD3BUApsSxQQQVAJrEe8CcBKCA0Lx7QLyaBLTC2
>NR9gFsBKVRAHkUchQO5CCsBEcAQgdxpCIGAXM4Y+bcUbMy0gPV8HwEh4dFAKwHRfH2AwAW+wMUJE
>VAH8LUU88ARwO0Er0FpwOCLeLSXRPCFdJ24mR1kgM6DXBGAEoDtBLG3MVzQSM6B9N9BzCrA74Smx
>c6AsDCK/MyA1IClyNLIWwDGRbxcVf24mabJcdyigFXAEICNgbfsAwAUQelZCIXBMEFZBUpO/QUJD
>2oDBCGAFQDPyPW3F+19TNHFIOyBi4hbAAiB6w/sz8jhweCLwCPFoAgQgW9K/PXE4QoASM/ExQANQ
>ZVpw/yRxMwGClkGAPgU59lrjCyD3NlGBLFfBIkoRZZEywnwR/0y2OHGClkc5OmZ9tziATKH/PvU3
>4AQAO8BBESEBN9BaUPp0FsBkPoJTIYQiUAIskP+RgQlwGZCA1EoSgpYaYH7zPUCxP23ML+Js9BbA
>Q0j6UG3FUnowRWUGEFQAIyD8IE8BICLwBJCV1k0wPFDodGR5gcFQP+EogI/k7TcxUIOhBcAvbOA+
>AAAAAAAARgAAAAAOhQAAAAAAAAMAMIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABGFAAAAAAAAAwAygAgg
>AAEAAAAAAAAAHgBCgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAN4UAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4AQ4AIIAYA
>NwAAWHA=
>
>------ =_NextPart_000_01BD6799.41DEF570--
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 11:47:44 -0700
>From: carol marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu>
>Subject: Re: PET Doses
>Message-ID: <2.2.32.19980414184744.0068dd8c@pop.ben2.ucla.edu>
>
>At 07:43 AM 4/14/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>Hello Everyone,
>>    An investigator I work with had a question about doses to patients
>>from PET studies using F-18 FDG. Can anyone point me in the right
>>direction as to where i can find any info, or supply me with any data?
>>thanks in advance for the help.
>>Truly yours,
>>Bob Dunn
>>rso.gscancer@worldnet.att.net
>>
>>Dear Bob:
>
>ICRP no. 53 has the biokinetic data and dosimetry for adults and children on
>pp 75-76.  The USP-DI (United States Pharmacopeia-Drug Information) has the
>glad to send you a copy.  If it is an emergency, send me your fax number.
>
>Ciao, Carol
>
>Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D.
>Phone: (310)222-2845
>FAX:  (310)533-7159
>e-mail:  csmarcus@ucla.edu
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:42:55 -0300 (ADT)
>From: Weihua Zhang <zhangw@is2.dal.ca>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Subject: Re: uranium in hair
>Message-ID: <Pine.A41.3.95.980414163956.44842A-100000@is2.dal.ca>
>
>
>Could you let me know what kinds of nuclides sit in the tap water
>and how are their concentration?
>
>Thanks
>
>Weihua
>
>On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, Rob Gunter wrote:
>
>> I believe the EPA monitors U in drinking water as part of the SDWA.  I
>> recall compiling a lot of this data a while back, and noted a lot of
>> variation in both U and Ra concentrations from less than MDA to 50 or
>> 100 pCi/l.  The local water supplier would likely have this information,
>> though you may have to ask a bunch of them to find the person who files
>> the results.
>>
>>
>> Rob Gunter
>>
>> >
>> >They also stated that almost all the samples they test from Califonia
>> show
>> >"elevated" levels.  The people we have heard from do not live near
>> (within 50
>> >miles of) nuclear power plants, nor was there any other information
>> provided
>> >by these people that would cause one to expect elevated levels.
>> My personal
>> >guess?  People in some regions of the country are exposed to higher
>> levels of
>> >naturally occurring U than in other regions through food and water.
>> >
>> >The lab in Chicago had no information regarding what would cause higher
>> levels
>> >in some portions of the population than others, nor did they have any
>> >information regarding what level one might actually expect some
>> physical
>> >consequence.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Robert J. Gunter, M.Sc.
>> Health Physicist
>> ICN Dosimetry Service
>> ICN Plaza
>> 3300 Hyland Avenue
>> Costa Mesa, CA  92626
>> Ph:  800 548-5100 X 2414
>>      +714 545-0100 X 2414
>> Fax: +714 668-3149
>> Email: rgunter@icnpharm.com
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: 14 Apr 1998 13:59:21 -0600
>From: Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>
>requested),
>Subject: Re: The Friendly Atom
>
>
>     Well Andy, some of us were even grown up (though just barely) in 1954,
>     and I remember the friendly atom pretty well.  The friendly atom image
>     wasn't altogether a good idea: the benefits of the "peaceful atom"
>     were somewhat overstated, and the adverse effects downplayed or
>     concealed altogether.  In 1959, Edward Teller lectured at my graduate
>     school and said, literally, that the only way Sr-90 could get into
>     milk was from cow bone chips in the milk!
>
>     Unfortunately the antis took a leaf from the pro-nuke book and started
>     exaggerating just when some of the more blatant pro-nuke exaggerations
>     were being exposed.  Many uninformed people are more likely to believe
>     negative exaggerations than positive ones, so it has become more
>     difficult to counter them.  Also, it's hard to prove or demonstrate
>     the absence of something.
>
>     I have no original or earth-shattering suggestions.  However it is
>     wise always to tell the truth, to keep pointing out the exaggerations,
>     and to put some perspective on risk.  The perspective I suggest is
>     that a risk <0.001 is essentially intuitively zero: e.g., if the
>     weather man predicts 10% chance of rain, do you think it's going to
>     rain?  No.  If you have a disease with a 95% recovery rate, do you
>     think you are going to get well?  Of course.  I am also coming to the
>     conclusion that no respectable, credible, honest scientist can be
>     found any longer on the anti-nuke side, because, as more and more
>     questions are answered, the science is on the pro-nuke side.
>
>     Clearly only my own opinion
>
>     Ruth F. Weiner
>     Transportation Systems Department
>     Sandia National Laboratories
>     505-844-4791
>     fax 505-844-0244
>     rfweine@sandia.gov
>
>
>
>_________________________________
>Subject: The Friendly Atom
>Author:  karam.1@osu.edu at hubsmtp
>Date:    4/14/98 11:38 AM
>
>
>I was recently reading an article titled "Man's New Servant, the Friendly
>Atom" from a 1954 National Geographic (I wasn't alive then, my wife bought
>me the new 30 CD ROM set of the magazine from 1888 through 1997).  As you
>can guess, the article was pretty upbeat, mentioning things like screwfly
>sterilization, thickness gauges, atomic energy, medical research, medical
>procedures, and so forth.
>
>What struck me most upon finishing the article is that, in over 40 years,
>the arguments and examples we give the public have hardly changed while
>those of our opponents have.  Could this help to explain the feeling that
>we're on the losing end of the PR wars?  Can anyone suggest ways we might
>try to adapt our message in the same way the antis have?  Or should we be
>trying to come up with a new message?  At this point I have no answers,
>only an observation and a lot of questions.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Andy
>
>The opinions expressed above are well-reasoned and insightful.  Needless to
>say, they are not those of my employer. (with apologies to Michael Feldman)
>
>Andrew Karam, MS, CHP                         (614) 292-1284 (phone)
>The Ohio State University                          (614) 292-7002 (fax)
>Office of Radiation Safety                         "The mind is not a vessel
>to
>1314 Kinnear Road                              be filled but a fire to be
>Columbus, OH  43212                              lighted." (Plutarch)
>(karam.1@osu.edu)
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:42:51 -0400
>From: Andrew Karam <karam.1@osu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Nat. Geo. CDROM
>Message-ID: <199804142039.QAA17502@mail2.uts.ohio-state.edu>
>
>
>Following are some questions and my answers about the National Geographic CD
>set I mentioned.  It was suggested to me that, although this somewhat
>peripheral to what we do, the materials may be of interest, especially given
>the chance to look at, say, several decades of reporting on nuclear power,
>
>Andy
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> What is your value judgement of this product?
>
>
>I just got this last week, so I am still in the playing-around stage.  I love
>the magazine and have wide-ranging interests, so I am having a blast right
>printout of the 1954 article for a class I teach) as well as for my kids in
>school.  So far I've looked at articles on the space program,
>power, the Panama Canal, and the Netherlands.  My only quarrel with it thus
>far
>is that the printouts are sometimes more difficult to read than the image is;
>there is the possibility to optimize print quality (I think at the expense of
>the graphics) but I have not yet played around with that.  All in all,
>however,
>I'd buy it for myself or recommend it to others.
>
>>
>> Is there a good search engine?
>
>
>The search engine is one of the best I have used.  In addition to turning up
>articles with the key words specified, it will also give you articles related
>to the one you highlight.  It will also tell you which CD to put into the
>drive.  Alternatively, you can put a CD in (each CD holds about 2.5 to 3
>years
>of issues) and call up the title pages of each issue or the table of
>contents.
>I just got this a week ago (as a graduation present), so I have not yet fully
>explored it. Also, the search engine will take you to a specific article, but
>not to a specified page, so you can find an article about gold mining, but
>you
>won't be able to find a reference to Botswana gold production within that
>article unless it is a major part of the article and included in the keywords
>or the title.
>
>
>>
>> Good graphics?
>
>
>It appears that the issues have been scanned in and the older issues are
>harder
>to read, but still legible.  The photos come in full color, can be rotated
>(if
>they're printed sideways), and you can zoom in or out.  For newer computers,
>the quality of the graphics is limited by the scan, for older machines, the
>video card and monitor will be the limiting factors.  I am not
>hardware-limited
>and can read everything easily.  The graphics are not razor-sharp, but
>they're
>
>>
>> Reasonable to read on a computer?
>
>
>For the most part, yes.  I called up an article about the landslides while
>building the Panama Canal and could read it relatively easily on-screen (17"
>monitor) and in the printout.  I had to use my bifocals to read the printout,
>but that's the case with everything, anymore.  Sigh....
>
>>
>> Most products I see like this translate very poorly to a computer screen.
>>If
>> you endorse it, I'll buy it.
>
>
>Boy, this just begs for a qualified response.  If you've had a subscription
>to
>the magazine for years and keep back issues, I would recommend this to
>you.  It
>is just plain neat to be able to look at (for example) how coverage of
>radiation and nuclear energy has changed over the past 50 years or so.  I
>just
>finished reading a history of the construction of the Panama Canal and was
>happy to be able to read the original articles written during and after the
>everything.  Searches are actually fun.  And, so far, I have not found the
>interface or presentation of the material to be clunky or difficult.
>However,
>the graphics for older issues and printouts are not razor-sharp.  What you
>get
>on-screen is either the full two-page spread (which is too small to read) or
>a
>close-up that overfills the screen.  I wish they had a variable zoom feature,
>but such is life.  If you are willing to overlook some of the (to me) minor
>shortcomings, I think you'll like the product.  If anyone is interested, I'll
>check when I get home to see if they have a money-back guarantee or a return
>period (the CDs contain over 15 GB of information, so there's no way you can
>
>
>The opinions expressed above are well-reasoned and insightful.  Needless to
>say, they are not those of my employer. (with apologies to Michael Feldman)
>
>Andrew Karam, MS, CHP					(614) 292-1284 (phone)
>The Ohio State University 					(614) 292-7002 (fax)
>Office of Radiation Safety					"The mind is not a vessel to
>1314 Kinnear Road						be filled but a fire to be
>Columbus, OH  43212						lighted." (Plutarch)
>(karam.1@osu.edu)
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:53:38 +0000
>From: "Kent N. Lambert" <lambert@auhs.edu>
>Subject: Re: The Friendly Atom
>Message-ID: <01IVV7JK61B6000B36@grover.auhs.edu>
>
>On 14 Apr 98 at 15:07, Ruth Weiner wrote:
>
>>      The
>>      perspective I suggest is that a risk <0.001 is essentially
>>      intuitively zero: e.g., if the weather man predicts 10% chance
>>      of rain, do you think it's going to rain?  No.  If you have a
>>      disease with a 95% recovery rate, do you think you are going to
>>      get well?  Of course.
>
>Would you go shopping in an area where 1 out of 10 cars in the
>parking lot were stolen?  Even though the chances are that they
>would not take your car, given a choice you would probably shop
>somewhere else. Would you take a trip to a foreign land if only 95
>out of each hundred people that made the trip survived terrorist
>attacks? No, another vacation location would be selected.  Would you
>go swimming at the shore (that's what they call the beach in the
>northeast) if 1 in a 1000 (0.001) swimmers were attacked by sharks
>(that would be maybe 50 mutilated bodies per weekend along the NJ
>shore)?  I doubt it, even though the shark would probably find
>someone else more tasty.
>
>I suggest that the severity of the outcome affects whether a risk
>of 0.1% is intuitively zero.
>
>Kent N. Lambert, M.S., CHP
>lambert@auhs.edu
>Allegheny University of the Health Sciences
>Hahnemann Division
>Radiation Physics and Safety, MS 106
>
>215-762-8768 (voice)
>215-762-7683 (fax)
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:04:16 -0500
>From: "Doerr, Lawrence" <DoerrL@ria.army.mil>
>Subject: Tritium Contamination Detectors
>Message-ID: <E77E6D3227B5D11180E300A0C9960A6E033B62@emh6.ria.army.mil>
>
>Does anyone know of a survey instrument capable of detecting fixed
>tritium contamination?  EG&G Berthold claims that the thin Mylar
>windowed LB 1230T1 is the only such detector.  If you have used this
>detector, please tell me what you think.
>
>Any and all comments are appreciated.
>
>Thanks
>doerrl@ria.army.mil
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:15:30 -0500
>From: David.Norman@waii.com
>Subject: Re: Tritium Contamination Detectors
>Message-ID: <862565E6.00741340.00@gw1.wg.waii.com>
>
>Ludlum Measurements has a Tritium Detector for use on their hand held
>meters,  Model 44-110.
>Contact Ludlum (or your local Ludlum distributor)  1-800-622-0828.
>
>Their web page is: www.ludlums.com
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 98 14:35:28 -0700
>From: "Thatcher, Drew" <dht0303@hub.doh.wa.gov>
>Subject: iodine uptake in thyroid
>Message-ID: <9DA3333501F10600@smtp.hub.doh.wa.gov>
>
>I'm looking for some information on the uptake of iodine in the thyroid
>for adults (chronic exposures), more specifically, the relative or
>fractional uptake of iodine when compared to the normal amount of iodine
>ingested.  ICRP 56 uses the value of 0.3.  Dunning and Schwarz (Health
>Phys 40 (5) 1981) provide estimates of the distribution of iodine uptake
>which shows that the mean is 0.19, median 0.17, and the mode 0.15.  The
>value of 0.3 probably represents about the 95% upper bound.  I'm
>uncertain as to whether this value is appropriate for chronic exposures
>to radioactive iodine (I-129) that represent anywhere from 50% to 200% of
>the normal, daily requirements of iodine (roughly 150 fg/d ingested -
>30 fg used (Guyton and Hall - Textbook of Medical Physiology)).  Could
>the fractional uptake simply be estimated as the amount needed over the
>amount ingested, i.e., does the body maintain the iodine concentration in
>the body under homeostatic control?
>
>Any insight, references, etc., would be appreciated.
>
>
>
>Sincerely,
>Andrew H. Thatcher, MSHP, CHP
>Washington Department of Health
>360-236-3255 voice*
>360-236-2255 fax*
>dht0303@doh.wa.gov
>*new number
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 22:43:40 +0100
>From: "Wil van der Putten" <wilvdp@tinet.ie>
>Subject: Bactec
>Message-ID: <199804142142.WAA16084@spock.tinet.ie>
>
>With respect to BACTEC bottles. I wonder if anybody can help.
>
>Disposal of the bottles used to be autoclaving, followed by incineration.
>However the national EPA has shut down all incinerators and the only option
>left is disposal through the sewer. (There is no landfill for low level
>waste and exporting is too big a burocratic nightmare to even begin to
>consider. Incidently, Ireland is exporting currently ALL its' clinical
>waste !)
>
>I looked at a bottlecrusher to crack the bottles and rinse the C14 liquid
>away. Although it worked -under scientific control- , the potential for
>contamination of the operator is quite high, especially considering the
>skill level of same and I have abandoned the method. We are currently
>storing the bottles.
>
>I wonder if there is a device commercially available which can suck the
>bottles empty without damaging them and with a very small probability to
>contaminate the operator ? Any suggestions would be greatfully received !
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 15:46:34 -0600
>From: sbrightwell@shepmill.com (Shane Brightwell)
>Subject: Re: Tritium Contamination Detectors
>Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19980414154634.006e3b08@gneiss.shepmill.com>
>
>Mr. Doerr:
>
>We are in the throws of a decommissioning project in which we performing
>surveys for tritium contamination.  We are using the Ludlum Model 44-110
>tritium detector mentioned by Mr. Norman.  If you consider going that
>route, give me a call; I'd be happy to share some information with you on
>the operating characteristics of the instrument.
>
>Technical Associates (Robert Goldstein, 818-883-7043) also has a tritium
>scanning probe/system.  I have no experience with this system, but I'm sure
>they could put you in contact with those who do.
>
>Reg's,
>
>Shane Brightwell
>~~~~~
>
>At 04:06 PM 4/14/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>Does anyone know of a survey instrument capable of detecting fixed
>>tritium contamination?  EG&G Berthold claims that the thin Mylar
>>windowed LB 1230T1 is the only such detector.  If you have used this
>>detector, please tell me what you think.
>>
>>Any and all comments are appreciated.
>>
>>Thanks
>>doerrl@ria.army.mil
>>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Shane Brightwell
>Senior Staff Engineer
>Health Physicist
>Shepherd Miller, Inc.
>3801 Automation Way
>Suite 100
>Fort Collins, CO 80525
>Ph: (970)223-9600 (main)
>    (970)206-4315 (office)
>FAX:(970)223-7171
>mailto:sbrightwell@shepmill.com
>http://www.shepmill.com
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:32:08 -0700
>From: Robert Monsalve-Jones (Robert Monsalve-Jones)
><RMonsalveJones@ITCRP.COM>
>Message-ID: <s533936d.005@ITCRP.COM>
>
>Lawrence
>TA has an open air, gas flow handheld unit that works for surface
>monitoring. Contact
>Technical Associates
>7051 Eton Ave
>Conoga Park, CA 91303
>(818) 883-7043
>contact Allen Goldstein
>
>If you have questions about the unit, I used them on a D&D project a few
>years ago with a decent amount of success. The detector can be tricky
>to set up, takes a moderate amount of time to stabilize, and with slight
>modification can work on rough surfaces.
>Please feel free to contact me with specific questions
>
>Robert Monsalve-Jones
>IT Corp
>557 Oppenheimer Drive, #200
>Los Alamos, NM 87544
>(505) 662-6449
>rmjones@itcrp.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 10:00:54 +1100
>From: Jocelyn Towson <jtowson@nucmed.rpa.cs.nsw.gov.au>
>Subject: Re: iodine uptake in thyroid
>Message-ID: <l03010d00b15997185886@[152.76.10.45]>
>
>>I'm looking for some information on the uptake of iodine in the thyroid
>>for adults (chronic exposures), more specifically, the relative or
>>fractional uptake of iodine when compared to the normal amount of iodine
>>ingested.  ICRP 56 uses the value of 0.3.  Dunning and Schwarz (Health
>>Phys 40 (5) 1981) provide estimates of the distribution of iodine uptake
>>which shows that the mean is 0.19, median 0.17, and the mode 0.15.  The
>>value of 0.3 probably represents about the 95% upper bound.  I'm
>>uncertain as to whether this value is appropriate for chronic exposures
>>to radioactive iodine (I-129) that represent anywhere from 50% to 200% of
>>the normal, daily requirements of iodine (roughly 150 Jg/d ingested -
>>30 Jg used (Guyton and Hall - Textbook of Medical Physiology)).  Could
>>the fractional uptake simply be estimated as the amount needed over the
>>amount ingested, i.e., does the body maintain the iodine concentration in
>>the body under homeostatic control?
>>
>>Any insight, references, etc., would be appreciated.
>
>There is a nice graph of fractional iodine uptake as a function of dietary
>iodine intake which is reproduced in an article in Health Physics 46:
>1265-1279, 1984.  The article is by D Crocker entitled Nuclear reactor
>accidents - the use of KI as a blocking agent against radioiodine uptake in
>the thyroid - a review.  The source of the graph is acknowledged as a paper
>by Kaul et al in Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 18: 185-195, 1980.
>The fractional uptake is shown as a maximum of around 0.8 for low iodine
>intakes of about 20 micrograms/day, falling to 0.3 at about 140 and 0.15
>around 300 micrograms/day.  That's the reason some centres recommend their
>thyroid cancer patients go on a low iodine diet before radioiodine therapy.
>Regards,
>Jocelyn Towson
>
>Jocelyn Towson, RSO
>Dept of PET & Nuclear Medicine
>Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
>Camperdown, NSW 2050
>Australia
>
>tel [national]  02 9515 8011    [international] 61 2 9515 8011
>fax [national]  02 9515 6381    [international] 61 2 9515 6381
>email   jtowson@nucmed.rpa.cs.nsw.gov.au
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:04:21 -0600
>From: "Fritz A. Seiler" <faseiler@nmia.com>
>Subject: TERMINOLOGY FOR UNCERTAINTY
>Message-ID: <3533F984.4A316684@nmia.com>
>
>A comment by Fritz Seiler and Joe Alvarez
>on the Use of the Term "Uncertainty."
>
>We have just mailed a Letter to the Editor of RISK ANALYSIS,
>entitled "On The Use Of The Term 'Uncertainty'."  We consider
>the issue important enough to put a shortened version on both
>lists
>
>Lately, many risk assessors been using the concept 'uncertainty'
>as part of a new terminology involving the terms 'uncertainty' and
>
>'variability', meant to distinguish two particular subsets of what
>
>was traditionally described by the general term 'uncertainty'.
>At the same time, international standards were clearly needed to
>describe uncertainties of measurements and calculations. A multi-
>year effort by the International Organization for Standardization
>(ISO) has resulted in an ISO Guide Document, which has found
>widespread international acceptance.  It is also used widely in US
>
>industry; has been adopted by the National Institute of Standards
>and Technology (NIST) for its own use (1); and was re-issued by
>the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as the American
>National Standard, ANSI/NCSL Z540-2-1997, under the title
>"American National Standard for Expressing Uncertainty  -  U.S.
>Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement."  An
>overview can be accessed on the NIST website for Constants,
>Units, and Uncertainties.  Its URL is:
>
>          http://physics.nist.gov/cuu
>
>These publications make two facts clear: One, these standards
>use the term 'uncertainty' in its traditional meaning as a general
>
>term for the total width of stochastic quantities; and Two, this
>total width is composed of two complementary contributions:
>random and systematic errors (1,2).
>
>As these new standards preempt the term 'uncertainty' for use in
>its traditional sense, its continued use in the specialized sense
>adopted by some is now contrary to these standards.  However,
>the change to this new terminology should not involve any
>hardships, nor should it lead to any real difficulties (2).  In
>the
>interest of better communication, we think that, as risk
>assessors,
>we would be well advised to make this change, and that it would
>be well worth the effort.
>
>REFERENCES
>
>1    B. N. Taylor and C. E. Kuyatt, Guidelines for Evaluating and
>     Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results.
>     Appendix D: Clarification and Additional Guidance  (NIST
>     Technical Note, TN 1297, Gaithersburg, MD, 1994).
>
>2.   F. A. Seiler and J. L. Alvarez, "Toward A New Risk
>     Assessment Paradigm: Variability, Uncertainty, and Errors,"
>     Technol. J. Franklin Inst. 332A, 221-235 (1995).
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:42:05 -0400
>From: stabin@esper.com (Mike Stabin)
>Subject: Fetal Dose Calculation Workbook
>Message-ID: <199804150042.UAA03783@alpha.esper.com>
>
>Fetal Dose Calculation Workbook
>
>The Radiation Internal Dose Information Center (RIDIC) in Oak Ridge, TN
>has developed a workbook to help people perform calculations of fetal
>doses from intakes of radioactive materials.  This material was originally
>presented in a Professional Enrichment Program (PEP) session at the
>1997 Health Physics Society meeting, but is now generally available to
>requestors through RIDIC.  This 70 page, spiral bound book includes:
>
>- An introduction and general explanation of the Medical Internal
>Radiaton Dose (MIRD) approach to internal dosimetry, including sample
>calculations
>- A brief description of currently available fetal dose models
>- Tables of S-values for Tc-99m and I-131 in the nonpregnant adult
>female and the adult female at 3 stages of pregnancy (3, 6, and 9
>months gestation), including all maternal organs, the placenta and fetus
>- A summary of the residence times and dose estimates for women at
>all stages of pregnancy for most radiopharmaceuticals (from Russell et
>al., Health Physics 73(5), 1997)
>- Sample calculations for fetal doses in the case of radiopharmaceutical
>- Fetal dose estimates for I-131 sodium iodide for hyperthyroid women,
>athyroid women, and in euthyroid and hyperthyroid women in which the
>administration of the I-131 followed conception by up to 8 weeks
>- Fetal thyroid dose estimates for I-123, I-124, I-125, and I-131 sodium
>iodide for months 3-9 of gestation
>- Sample calculations for fetal doses from intakes of radionuclides in the
>workplace, as given in NUREG/CR-5631 (Sikov and Hui 1996)
>
>To obtain a copy of this document, see RIDIC's web page at
>http://www.orau.gov/ehsd/ridic.htm
>
>Mike Stabin
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:49:12 EDT
>From: Holloway3 <Holloway3@aol.com>
>Subject: Re: The Friendly Atom
>Message-ID: <89e8388f.35340409@aol.com>
>
>I think that one of the problems in public relations on the "atom" is what
>might be termed the "Problem of the Commons".  When property such as an ocean
>or land is owned in common but used by everyone, no single individual has
>much
>economic incentive to use the resource in a way that will benefit society at
>large or future generations.  The economic incentive encourages only full and
>immediate use, whether it is overgrazing or over-fishing, with very little
>thought given to conserving the resource.   That is one reason whales were
>hunted almost to extinction and why fish catches are declining.
>
>Try thinking of the good will of the public (towards atomic issues) as a
>resource.  Who among us has any significant incentive to correct the
>thousands
>of myths and misconceptions that are now present in the public mind about the
>nuclear industry?  The anti-nuclear crowd seem to be far more vocal.  As far
>as I know, there are no significant programs out there sponsored by any of
>our
>professional organizations, or if there are, they are not big enough or well
>funded enough to make an impact on me or with the public.   Since there is
>very little incentive, who will do it?  I don't have any answers, but I hope
>that each of us will contribute in some small way, even if it does not make
>economic sense.
>
>
>
>                                                            R. Holloway
>
>                                                            http://www.ntanet
>.
>net/publicinfo.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: 14 Apr 1998 19:09:52 -0600
>From: Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>
>requested),
>Subject: Re[2]: The Friendly Atom
>
>
>     Depends on one's frame of reference, and how real the examples are.
>     10% chance of rain is certainly real, and still suggests no rain.  10%
>     chance of car theft wouldn't occur so much in a parking lot as on a
>     street, and yes I have taken that chance, and I know cars that haven't
>     survived it. A 10% chance does not mean that every tenth car is
>     vandalized, any more than a 50% chance of tossing heads means that
>     every other coin toss is heads.  This is exactly the common
>     misperception about cancer: probability is equated to a frequency.
>
>     I would certainly take a 95% chance that a terrorist would not attack
>     me.  Anyway,as above , a 5% probability is not a 5% certainty: one
>     person of every twenty is not certain to be attacked.
>
>     Yes I would unhesitatingly swim in waters where there is a 0.1%
>     probability of shark attack.  I have trouble distinguishing
>     intuitively between a 0.1% risk and "no risk," and certainly can't
>     distinguish intuitively between 0.1% and 0.01%, and I suspect most
>     others can't make that intuitive distinction either.
>
>     One aspect of all this that I am indeed remiss in not mentioning: all
>     of the risks we have mentioned have a benefit side.  The problem with
>     radiologically associated risks is that, except for personal things
>     like x-rays, people do not see the corresponding benefit.
>
>     By the way, here is a true story: my husband had a squamous cell skin
>     cancer removed from his arm. The probability of recovery is 95% and he
>     has fully recovered.  Our late Congressman, Steve Schiff, was one of
>     the 5% who did not recover from exactly this type of cancer, and died
>     a few weeks ago.  So even though 95% recovery still means recovery to
>     me, I recognize that 5% is significant.  It is, however, 50 times
>     0.1%.
>
>      Clearly only my own opinion
>
>     Ruth F. Weiner
>     Transportation Systems Department
>     Sandia National Laboratories
>     505-844-4791
>     fax 505-844-0244
>     rfweine@sandia.gov
>
>
>_________________________________
>Subject: Re: The Friendly Atom
>Author:  lambert@auhs.edu at hubsmtp
>Date:    4/14/98 3:00 PM
>
>
>On 14 Apr 98 at 15:07, Ruth Weiner wrote:
>
>>      The
>>      perspective I suggest is that a risk <0.001 is essentially
>>      intuitively zero: e.g., if the weather man predicts 10% chance
>>      of rain, do you think it's going to rain?  No.  If you have a
>>      disease with a 95% recovery rate, do you think you are going to
>>      get well?  Of course.
>
>Would you go shopping in an area where 1 out of 10 cars in the
>parking lot were stolen?  Even though the chances are that they
>would not take your car, given a choice you would probably shop
>somewhere else. Would you take a trip to a foreign land if only 95
>out of each hundred people that made the trip survived terrorist
>attacks? No, another vacation location would be selected.  Would you
>go swimming at the shore (that's what they call the beach in the
>northeast) if 1 in a 1000 (0.001) swimmers were attacked by sharks
>(that would be maybe 50 mutilated bodies per weekend along the NJ
>shore)?  I doubt it, even though the shark would probably find
>someone else more tasty.
>
>I suggest that the severity of the outcome affects whether a risk
>of 0.1% is intuitively zero.
>
>Kent N. Lambert, M.S., CHP
>lambert@auhs.edu
>Allegheny University of the Health Sciences
>Hahnemann Division
>Radiation Physics and Safety, MS 106