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

Re: RADSAFE digest 2738



radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu wrote:

>                             RADSAFE Digest 2738
>
> Topics covered in this issue include:
>
>   1) Re: Release of I-131 Patients
>         by carol marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu>
>   2) One more time - Release of I-131 Patient Software
>         by "Joe Hellman" <HELLMANJ@slrmc.org>
>   3) RE: Release of I-131 Patients
>         by carol marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu>
>   4) Re[2]: Release of I-131 Patients
>         by steve.rima@DOEGJPO.COM (Steven Rima)
>   5) Sealed Source and Device Registry (SS&D) - Where Are The
> Requirements?
>         by roseb@gdls.com
>   6) Re: Release of I-131 Patients
>         by Thomas Gray & Associates <tga@95net.com>
>   7) Looking for check sources
>         by "Pangea, Inc." <pangea_inc@yahoo.com>
>   8) ANSI 13.27 Status - No one Knows....
>         by Jim Kost <jkost@mgpi.com>
>   9) RE: Sealed Source and Device Registry (SS&D) - Where Are The Requ
>
>         by "Silber, Barry" <Silber@mail1.MONMOUTH.ARMY.MIL>
>  10) Plastic Scintillators
>         by Keith McCartney <MCCAKA@doe-md.gov>
>  11) RE: Sealed Source and Device Registry (SS&D) - Where Are The Requ
>
>         by roseb@gdls.com
>  12) Re: I-125 Prostate Therapy Regs.-Comparison of complications vs.
>         by RADPROJECT@aol.com
>  13) Luxel Information Received
>         by "Dobson, Larry {Plea~Pleasanton}" <LARRY.DOBSON@ROCHE.COM>
>  14) RE: Landfill detector trips
>         by "Simmons, Charlie" <CSimmons@kilstock.com>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:46:49 -0700
> From: carol marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu, ratcher@aol.com, Tbeven1957@aol.com,
>
> Subject: Re: Release of I-131 Patients
> Message-ID: <2.2.32.19991029164649.0155ff78@pop.ben2.ucla.edu>
>
> At 08:37 AM 10/29/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >Dear Radsafers:
> >
> >In response to a few non-medical HPs that have expressed interest in
> the
> >release of I-131 patients - Don't you know that radiation from these
> >patients is "good" radiation, but radiation from power plants is
> "bad"
> >radiation??!!! - JUST KIDDING!!!
> >
> >I do agree that 500 mrem is 500 mrem, regardless of the source.
> Fortunately
> >(from the medical community's standpoint), nuclear medicine
> physicians did a
> >good job of selling the idea that the release of these patients
> probably
> >constitutes very little radiation hazard.  Basically, it boils down
> to
> >perspective - it's OK to expose the general public to a little
> radiation if
> >we are treating cancer, but it's not OK to expose them to the same
> amount to
> >generate electrical power.  I'm not saying what's right - I'm just
> saying
> >what is (at least in my opinion).
> >
> >Another issue regarding I-131 patients is the cost of
> hospitalization.  Both
> >now and in the past, most patients treated with I-131 do/did not
> require
> >hospitalization for medical care reasons.  It's purely a matter of
> isolating
> >them to protect the general public at a cost of greater than $1000
> per day
> >for a hospital room.  I've never understood why the medical insurance
> groups
> >never questioned this.  I would bet that as more and more hospitals
> elect to
> >release these patients, the medical insurance groups will really
> pressure
> >all hospitals to follow suit.  I'm not an expert on medical insurance
>
> >carriers, but I believe that the trend is for medical insurance to
> pay a
> >specific amount for a certain disease.  If the patient is
> hospitalized, the
> >cost may exceed what the insurance carrier pays.  Thus, the hospital
> either
> >has to eat the additional cost or the patient must pay the difference
> out of
> >his/her pocket.  Again, this is my perspective which may or may not
> be
> >correct.
> >
> >I would like to point out that we medical folks don't just administer
> 100 to
> >200 mCis of I-131 and tell the patient, "Don't let the door hit you
> in the
> >behind on the way out."  Realistically, the individuals most likely
> to
> >receive the highest effective doses from these patients are other
> members of
> >their family.  At our facility, we go through a fairly extensive
> >questionnaire which gives us a reasonable idea of the patient's home
> >situation.  We also ask a question about their occupation (e.g., do
> they sit
> >next to a co-worker 8 hours/day).  Based upon the answers to these
> questions
> >we make a determination of how much I-131 can be administered to the
> patient
> >without requiring hospitalization and/or if the patient should be
> >hospitalized.  We also provide the patient with written instructions
> (as
> >required by NRC), some of which may be specific to the patient's
> situation.
> >The doctor goes over these instructions with the patient and both the
>
> >patient and the doctor sign them.
> >
> >You can certainly argue that the patient may not understand the
> instructions
> >or simply elect not to follow them; however, our doctors are pretty
> good at
> >identifying such patients and will hospitalize them if necessary.
> >Realistically, most patients are willing to follow these instructions
> to
> >protect their family members.  We have even had a couple of patients
> who
> >requested to be hospitalized to protect their family (they had small
> >children at home).  In addition to the written instructions, we are
> >currently developing an automated "Powerpoint" presentation to help
> the
> >patient understand the importance of following the instructions.
> >
> >It seems that I have heard of a couple of facilities that have
> attempted to
> >measure external dose equivalents to the family members of I-131
> patients by
> >issuing film or TLD badges to those family members.  Anyone know
> about this
> >and if so, where we can view the results?  That would be interesting.
>
> >
> >Mack L. Richard, M.S., C.H.P.
> >Radiation Safety Officer - IUPUI/Indiana Univ. Med. Cntr.
> >Phone #: (317) 274-0330   Fax #: (317) 274-2332
> >E-Mail Address:  mrichar@iupui.edu
> >
> >
> ***********************************************************************
>
> >The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
> subscription
> >information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> >
>
> Dear Richard and other Radsafers:
>
> The "double standard" problem is interesting.  When you realize that
> the
> average American will receive 3 nuclear medicine procedures in his/her
>
> lifetime, numerous radioimmunoassays in lab tests, and possibly
> teletherapy
> and/or brachytherapy, it's pretty scary to jeopardize these fields.
> To do
> so would cause real deaths, not the "make believe" deaths of low dose
> ionizing radiation.
>
> It is obvious by NRC's 10 CFR 20.1301(c) that the 500 mrem limit may
> be
> applied to any group that makes a good case.  I may have been the
> first to
> use this mechanism, and NRC suggested that I do so when they asked me
> to
> write my petition, but hasn't it been used by others?  In the default
> accident analysis for LLRW sites performed for 10 CFR Part 61, the 500
> mrem
> standard was used; I assume it remains justifiable under 1301(c).
>
> I think that part of the problem with the 500 mrem patient discharge
> standard is that it makes the rest of NRC's behavior, and much of
> Agreement
> State regulatory behavior, look ridiculous.  All these atom-hunting
> meter
> maids running around a licensee's facility and finding a few loose
> atoms
> here or there, or the remnants of a spill, or a bone scan patient's
> saliva
> on a styrofoam cup in a public trash container, suddenly realize that
> none
> of this effort has any intellectually respectable basis.  Permissible
> removable contamination levels have no scientifically valid basis, and
> just
> cause the creation of paper to give inspectors something to inspect.
> Finding, oh my God, an unlocked refrigerator with microcurie
> quantities of
> C-14 and H-3 labeled compounds causes venomous NRC retribution, but
> the
> whole thing is pathologically dumb, because NRC refuses to subject its
>
> requirements to realistic physics calculations of radiation absorbed
> dose.
> I remember NRC screeching about a tad of Sr-89 on the floor in a
> hallway of
> a hospital.  You'd think personnel were dropping like flies as a
> result.  I
> did a dose calculation that assumed that an INFANT LICKED UP ALL THE
> SR-89
> ON THE FLOOR, and the radiation absorbed dose to the infant was
> insignificant.  Now, you compare dysfunctional regulatory behavior
> like this
> with the realization that loose atoms of I-131 are going to be around
> the
> patient's home, and workplace, and that it doesn't matter because the
> dose
> is low and safe, and even a regulator has to realize that this
> inconsistency
> is very silly.
>
> However, instead of producing an intelligent reaction in the
> regulator, like
> changing all of its requirements and creating a performance standard
> based
> on dose, the regulator is afraid that his ignorance will show, and
> that he
> will be downsized because most of what he does is "make work", and he
> wants
> to kill the thing that shows how foolish he is instead of fixing his
> foolishness.
>
> As far as this I-131 patient discharge situation is concerned, the NRC
>
> screwed it up by turning it into another paper jungle.  In California,
> the
> PHYSICIAN has to know how to do the dose calculations, and the
> PHYSICIAN has
> to educate the patient about specific radiation protection behavior,
> and if
> the PHYSICIAN does not know how to do the calculations and/or does not
> have
> time to spend with the patient, then THE PHYSICIAN CANNOT USE THE 500
> MREM
> RULE.  No paperwork.  Just getting down to the guts of the problem.
> COMPETENCE AND QUALITY.  As far as the fear about insurance companies
> not
> paying for inpatient stays because of this rule, I have heard about
> one case
> at Stanford where the hospital ate the cost, but the Radiologic Health
>
> Branch, or one of their Nuclear Medicine Counsel members, is prepared
> to
> read the riot act to any insurance company who pulls this stunt and so
> I
> haven't heard any more bad stories.  I would think that physicians who
> can
> do the calculations and who will take the time to educate their
> patients
> could take business away from docs who can't and won't, but we will
> have to
> see how this plays out.  I had the 500 mrem rule myself for years
> before I
> wrote my petition, and I nevertheless hospitalized many patients
> because of
> socioeconomic considerations, compliance risk factors, or occasional
> political situations which, while stupid, nevertheless made life
> easier for
> my RSO, who has more than enough work to do.
>
> It is also important to remember that it has NEVER been legal to keep
> an
> I-131 patient in the hospital against his will, no matter how much
> I-131 is
> in him/her.  It is battery to try.  So, no matter what anyone thinks
> of this
> rule, a patient can always walk out no matter what a doctor says, and
> always
> could.  If, in fact, there was any REAL risk to members of the public
> from
> this radioactivity, it would have been made legal to forcibly retain
> these
> patients.  But there never was a real risk; just NRC make-believe.
>
> Ciao, Carol
>
> ***********
> ************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:05:47 -0600
> From: "Joe Hellman" <HELLMANJ@slrmc.org>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: One more time - Release of I-131 Patient Software
> Message-ID: <s8197f92.035@slrmc.org>
>
> Since the I-131 release thread has resurfaced, I'd like to again
> solicit input concerning a software release program.  I received only
> one response last time.
>
> To comply with the release criteria in NRC Regulatory Guide 8.39, our
> hospital is looking for release software that includes
> patient-specific
> information handouts.  The handouts should be commensurate with their
> nuclide, dose, sleeping arrangements, breast-feeding status and tailor
> able
> to uptake if desired.
>
> Either commercial or shareware is acceptable.  Please contact me
> directly
> with your information.
>
> Joe Hellman
> Medical Physicist
> St. Luke's Regional Medical Center
> Mountain States Tumor Institute
> 100 E. Idaho St
> Boise, Idaho  83712
> 208-381-3118
> fax  208-381-2841
>
> *****************
> ******************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:12:55 -0700
> From: carol marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: RE: Release of I-131 Patients
> Message-ID: <2.2.32.19991029171255.01591bc4@pop.ben2.ucla.edu>
>
> At 09:08 AM 10/29/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >Having a few years of Operational Health Physics Supervision behind
> me, I
> >would be interested in some dialogue discussing the impact that has
> been
> >witnessed from "Patients that have been released."
> >
> >I remember an episode when we had an individual set off our "Exit"
> monitors
> >on his way into the plant.  To make a long story, and a long
> investigation
> >short, this individual had visited a local restaurant, used the
> >"facilities", and left.  Further investigation revealed that one of
> the
> >restaurant employees had received Iodine treatment and been
> released.  This
> >individual was using the same restroom that the patrons were
> utilizing.
> >
> >The impact was felt on the individual that could not start work when
> needed,
> >the amount of time and effort spent on the investigation by power
> plant
> >personnel and on the unknowing multitudes that used the same
> restroom.
> >
> >Hold your stones, grammar and spelling not checked intentionally,
> just want
> >open, honest dialogue.
> >
> >Mark Settles
> >Innovative Industrial Solutions, Inc.
> >msettles@cswnet.com
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> >> [mailto:radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu]On Behalf Of Richard, Mack L
> >> Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 8:36 AM
> >> To: Multiple recipients of list
> >> Subject: Release of I-131 Patients
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Radsafers:
> >>
> >> In response to a few non-medical HPs that have expressed
> >> interest in the
> >> release of I-131 patients - Don't you know that radiation from
> these
> >> patients is "good" radiation, but radiation from power plants is
> "bad"
> >> radiation??!!! - JUST KIDDING!!!
> >>
> >> I do agree that 500 mrem is 500 mrem, regardless of the
> >> source.  Fortunately
> >> (from the medical community's standpoint), nuclear medicine
> >> physicians did a
> >> good job of selling the idea that the release of these
> >> patients probably
> >> constitutes very little radiation hazard.  Basically, it boils down
> to
> >> perspective - it's OK to expose the general public to a
> >> little radiation if
> >> we are treating cancer, but it's not OK to expose them to the
> >> same amount to
> >> generate electrical power.  I'm not saying what's right - I'm
> >> just saying
> >> what is (at least in my opinion).
> >>
> >> Another issue regarding I-131 patients is the cost of
> >> hospitalization.  Both
> >> now and in the past, most patients treated with I-131 do/did
> >> not require
> >> hospitalization for medical care reasons.  It's purely a
> >> matter of isolating
> >> them to protect the general public at a cost of greater than
> >> $1000 per day
> >> for a hospital room.  I've never understood why the medical
> >> insurance groups
> >> never questioned this.  I would bet that as more and more
> >> hospitals elect to
> >> release these patients, the medical insurance groups will
> >> really pressure
> >> all hospitals to follow suit.  I'm not an expert on medical
> insurance
> >> carriers, but I believe that the trend is for medical
> >> insurance to pay a
> >> specific amount for a certain disease.  If the patient is
> >> hospitalized, the
> >> cost may exceed what the insurance carrier pays.  Thus, the
> >> hospital either
> >> has to eat the additional cost or the patient must pay the
> >> difference out of
> >> his/her pocket.  Again, this is my perspective which may or may not
> be
> >> correct.
> >>
> >> I would like to point out that we medical folks don't just
> >> administer 100 to
> >> 200 mCis of I-131 and tell the patient, "Don't let the door
> >> hit you in the
> >> behind on the way out."  Realistically, the individuals most likely
> to
> >> receive the highest effective doses from these patients are
> >> other members of
> >> their family.  At our facility, we go through a fairly extensive
> >> questionnaire which gives us a reasonable idea of the patient's
> home
> >> situation.  We also ask a question about their occupation
> >> (e.g., do they sit
> >> next to a co-worker 8 hours/day).  Based upon the answers to
> >> these questions
> >> we make a determination of how much I-131 can be administered
> >> to the patient
> >> without requiring hospitalization and/or if the patient should be
> >> hospitalized.  We also provide the patient with written
> >> instructions (as
> >> required by NRC), some of which may be specific to the
> >> patient's situation.
> >> The doctor goes over these instructions with the patient and both
> the
> >> patient and the doctor sign them.
> >>
> >> You can certainly argue that the patient may not understand
> >> the instructions
> >> or simply elect not to follow them; however, our doctors are
> >> pretty good at
> >> identifying such patients and will hospitalize them if necessary.
> >> Realistically, most patients are willing to follow these
> >> instructions to
> >> protect their family members.  We have even had a couple of
> >> patients who
> >> requested to be hospitalized to protect their family (they had
> small
> >> children at home).  In addition to the written instructions, we are
>
> >> currently developing an automated "Powerpoint" presentation
> >> to help the
> >> patient understand the importance of following the instructions.
> >>
> >> It seems that I have heard of a couple of facilities that
> >> have attempted to
> >> measure external dose equivalents to the family members of
> >> I-131 patients by
> >> issuing film or TLD badges to those family members.  Anyone
> >> know about this
> >> and if so, where we can view the results?  That would be
> interesting.
> >>
> >> Mack L. Richard, M.S., C.H.P.
> >> Radiation Safety Officer - IUPUI/Indiana Univ. Med. Cntr.
> >> Phone #: (317) 274-0330   Fax #: (317) 274-2332
> >> E-Mail Address:  mrichar@iupui.edu
> >>
> >> **************************************************************
> >> **********
> >> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
> subscription
> >> information can be accessed at
> >http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> >
> >
> ***********************************************************************
>
> >The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
> subscription
> >information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> >
>
> Dear Mark and Radsafers:
>
> The problem was not the patient who was released.  The problem is
> NRC's
> nonsensical requirements at power plants.  Fix those.
>
> We had a related incident in Los Angeles at a sanitary landfill that
> had
> installed highly sensitive NaI(Tl) detectors.  We were picking up
> diapers
> and other remnants of nuclear medicine procedures.  One day Rad Health
> spent
> hours trying to locate the radioactive trash in a truck, and it turned
> out
> that the driver had had an NaI-123 thyroid scan and when he drove the
> truck
> past the detectors, he set them off. We fixed the problem.  We
> measured all
> trash with nuclear medicine contamination, and set the baseline of the
>
> detector at 10x background and stopped "discovering" this problem.
> All was
> fine for years until a different agency took over, set the meter at 3x
>
> background, and this "problem" occurred again.
>
> The problem is not the patients.  It is foolish regulators who set
> limits
> that are irrational, and cause all sorts of silly "problems" as a
> result.
> Today, we have portable spectrometers and can even relay spectrometry
> information to anyone with an identification program.  We could solve
> this
> "problem" with state-of-the-art technology and good scientific sense.
> Hello?  NRC?  Is anyone home?  Is this going to be the basis for the
> new
> solid waste regs, or is it going to be another negotiated settlement
> with
> antinuke hysterical liars?
>
> Ciao, Carol
>
> Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D.
> <csmarcus@ucla.edu>
>
> *******************
> ****************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:36:11 -0600
> From: steve.rima@DOEGJPO.COM (Steven Rima)
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>,
> Subject: Re[2]: Release of I-131 Patients
> Message-ID: <0005DE97.3388@DOEGJPO.COM>
>
>      I too have had the fun of looking into a couple of sanitary
> landfill
>      alarms. I don't believe that we can lay this problem at the feet
> of
>      the NRC or any other regulatory agency, at least in most cases.
> Where
>      I've looked into alarms at landfills, the alarm setpoint was
>      arbitrarily set by the landfill (or the company that installed
> their
>      detection system), and not by any regulatory requirements. I've
> seen
>      the same thing at scrap metal yards. How many states have
> regulations
>      that even require such monitors, let alone mandate the alarm
> setpoint?
>
>      No matter what the limits are, there will always be those who
> will
>      want their landfills to admit "no radioactive material", along
> with
>      the companies making and installing such instruments. I don't see
> this
>      particular problem going away no matter what contamination limits
> are
>      set by NRC. I see it getting worse as instrument manufacturers
> make
>      even more sensitive instruments that they push landfills to buy.
>
>      Steven D. Rima, CHP, CSP
>      Manager, Health Physics and Industrial Hygiene
>      MACTEC-ERS, LLC
>      steven.rima@doegjpo.com
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
>      <snip>
>
>      Carol Marcus wrote:
>
>
> Dear Mark and Radsafers:
>
> The problem was not the patient who was released.  The problem is
> NRC's
> nonsensical requirements at power plants.  Fix those.
>
> We had a related incident in Los Angeles at a sanitary landfill that
> had
> installed highly sensitive NaI(Tl) detectors.  We were picking up
> diapers
> and other remnants of nuclear medicine procedures.  One day Rad Health
> spent
> hours trying to locate the radioactive trash in a truck, and it turned
> out
> that the driver had had an NaI-123 thyroid scan and when he drove the
> truck
> past the detectors, he set them off. We fixed the problem.  We
> measured all
> trash with nuclear medicine contamination, and set the baseline of the
>
> detector at 10x background and stopped "discovering" this problem.
> All was
> fine for years until a different agency took over, set the meter at 3x
>
> background, and this "problem" occurred again.
>
> The problem is not the patients.  It is foolish regulators who set
> limits
> that are irrational, and cause all sorts of silly "problems" as a
> result.
> Today, we have portable spectrometers and can even relay spectrometry
> information to anyone with an identification program.  We could solve
> this
> "problem" with state-of-the-art technology and good scientific sense.
> Hello?  NRC?  Is anyone home?  Is this going to be the basis for the
> new
> solid waste regs, or is it going to be another negotiated settlement
> with
> antinuke hysterical liars?
>
> Ciao, Carol
>
> Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D.
> <csmarcus@ucla.edu>
>
> *******************
> ****************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:46:21 -0400
> From: roseb@gdls.com
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Sealed Source and Device Registry (SS&D) - Where Are The
> Requirements?
> Message-ID: <OF34ABE4D4.E933E80E-ON85256819.0065B644@gdls.com>
>
> Reference the below link to the NRC Office of State Programs Device
> Registry (SS&D):
>
>      http://www.hsrd.ornl.gov/nrc/ssdr/ssdrindx.htm
>
> Is there a requirement in 10CFR or other federal or agreement state
> regulation to register sealed sources and devices in the SS&D
> registry?  If
> so, where specifically is this requirement?
>
> Henry
>
> alpha*beta*gamma*neutron*xray*alpha*beta*gamma
>
> Boyd H. Rose, CIH, CM, AAHP(A)
> Radiation Protection Officer
> General Dynamics Land Systems
> 1161 Buckeye Road
> Mail Zone 483-08-01
> Lima, Ohio 45804-1825
> E-mail:    roseb@gdls.com
> Telephone: (419) 221-8588
> Fax:       (419) 221-7470
>
> *xray*alpha*beta*gamma*neutron*xray*alpha*beta
>
> **********************************************
> *************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:53:26 -0700
> From: Thomas Gray & Associates <tga@95net.com>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: Release of I-131 Patients
> Message-ID: <3819ED26.7A74@95net.com>
>
> Steven Rima wrote:
> >
> >      I too have had the fun of looking into a couple of sanitary
> landfill
> >      alarms. I don't believe that we can lay this problem at the
> feet of
> >      the NRC or any other regulatory agency, at least in most cases.
> Where
> >      I've looked into alarms at landfills, the alarm setpoint was
> >      arbitrarily set by the landfill (or the company that installed
> their
> >      detection system), and not by any regulatory requirements. I've
> seen
> >      the same thing at scrap metal yards. How many states have
> regulations
> >      that even require such monitors, let alone mandate the alarm
> setpoint?
> >
> >      No matter what the limits are, there will always be those who
> will
> >      want their landfills to admit "no radioactive material", along
> with
> >      the companies making and installing such instruments. I don't
> see this
> >      particular problem going away no matter what contamination
> limits are
> >      set by NRC. I see it getting worse as instrument manufacturers
> make
> >      even more sensitive instruments that they push landfills to
> buy.
> >
> >      Steven D. Rima, CHP, CSP
> >      Manager, Health Physics and Industrial Hygiene
> >      MACTEC-ERS, LLC
> >      steven.rima@doegjpo.com
> >
> > ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> >      <snip>
> >
> >      Carol Marcus wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Mark and Radsafers:
> >
> > The problem was not the patient who was released.  The problem is
> NRC's
> > nonsensical requirements at power plants.  Fix those.
> >
> > We had a related incident in Los Angeles at a sanitary landfill that
> had
> > installed highly sensitive NaI(Tl) detectors.  We were picking up
> diapers
> > and other remnants of nuclear medicine procedures.  One day Rad
> Health spent
> > hours trying to locate the radioactive trash in a truck, and it
> turned out
> > that the driver had had an NaI-123 thyroid scan and when he drove
> the truck
> > past the detectors, he set them off. We fixed the problem.  We
> measured all
> > trash with nuclear medicine contamination, and set the baseline of
> the
> > detector at 10x background and stopped "discovering" this problem.
> All was
> > fine for years until a different agency took over, set the meter at
> 3x
> > background, and this "problem" occurred again.
> >
> > The problem is not the patients.  It is foolish regulators who set
> limits
> > that are irrational, and cause all sorts of silly "problems" as a
> result.
> > Today, we have portable spectrometers and can even relay
> spectrometry
> > information to anyone with an identification program.  We could
> solve this
> > "problem" with state-of-the-art technology and good scientific
> sense.
> > Hello?  NRC?  Is anyone home?  Is this going to be the basis for the
> new
> > solid waste regs, or is it going to be another negotiated settlement
> with
> > antinuke hysterical liars?
> >
> > Ciao, Carol
> >
> > Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D.
> > <csmarcus@ucla.edu>
> >
> >
> ************************************************************************
>
> > The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
> subscription
> > information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> >
> ************************************************************************
>
> > The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
> subscription
> > information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> Steve-
> I don't think that scrap yards and landfills are setting their
> monitors
> at very sensitive settings to push an agenda or at the suggestion of
> instrument manufacturers trying to sell more instruments. Our company
> (Thomas Gray and Associates) is called on a monthly basis from some
> unfortunate landfill or scrapyard operator who didn't have his meter
> set
> low enough (or didn't have a meter at all) and is now forced to take
> responsibility (financial and legal) for someone who dropped off a
> general licensed gage or other misplaced radioactive material and
> called
> it scrap or trash. We have found radium sources under the driver's
> seats
> of junked autos, numerous gamma sources comingled with scrap metal of
> all types, and i could go on and on but i think you get the point. I
> do
> know that if it was my scrapyard/landfill i would set my meter at the
> lowest setting possible and ask questions later.
>
> Rich Gallego
> Thomas Gray and Associates, Inc.
> ********************************
> ***************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Pangea, Inc." <pangea_inc@yahoo.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Looking for check sources
> Message-ID: <19991029190848.28864.rocketmail@web901.mail.yahoo.com>
>
> Any ideas where to obtain (fairly quickly) a
>
> 10nCi Th-230 alpha check source
> and a
> 10nCi Tc-99 beta source
>
> I have a supplier in mind but they cannot deliver in
> less that 30-45 days. We are open to all suggestions.
>
> Many thanks in advance,
>
> Jim Hensley
> (636) 519-4878
>
> =====
> Pangea, Inc.
> 743 Spirit 40 Park Drive
> Suite 232
> Chesterfield, MO 63005
> fax (314) 519-4876
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:47:38 -0400
> From: Jim Kost <jkost@mgpi.com>
> To: "RADSAFE (E-mail)" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: ANSI 13.27 Status - No one Knows....
> Message-ID: <33F3A166EB59D11180B300A0C97863761E19A4@mgpi_nts4_pdc>
>
> Does anyone on Radsafe know anything on the status of ANSI 13.27 Draft
>
> on Electronic Dosimetry.
>
> Jim Kost
> jkost@mgpi.com
>
> Radiological Engineer
> *********************
> **************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:19:43 -0400
> From: "Silber, Barry" <Silber@mail1.MONMOUTH.ARMY.MIL>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: RE: Sealed Source and Device Registry (SS&D) - Where Are The
> Requ
> Message-ID:
> <272086090786D211853D0000F8081371015702BD@mail5.monmouth.army.mil>
>
> The NRC places a specific condition into their licenses which state:
>
> "The licensee shall not acquire licensed material in a sealed source
> or
> device unless the source or device has been registered with the U.S.
> Nuclear
> Regulatory Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 32.210 or equivalent
> regulations of
> an Agreement State."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: roseb@gdls.com [mailto:roseb@gdls.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 2:50 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Sealed Source and Device Registry (SS&D) - Where Are The
> Requirements?
>
> Reference the below link to the NRC Office of State Programs Device
> Registry (SS&D):
>
>      http://www.hsrd.ornl.gov/nrc/ssdr/ssdrindx.htm
>
> Is there a requirement in 10CFR or other federal or agreement state
> regulation to register sealed sources and devices in the SS&D
> registry?  If
> so, where specifically is this requirement?
>
> Henry
>
> alpha*beta*gamma*neutron*xray*alpha*beta*gamma
>
> Boyd H. Rose, CIH, CM, AAHP(A)
> Radiation Protection Officer
> General Dynamics Land Systems
> 1161 Buckeye Road
> Mail Zone 483-08-01
> Lima, Ohio 45804-1825
> E-mail:    roseb@gdls.com
> Telephone: (419) 221-8588
> Fax:       (419) 221-7470
>
> *xray*alpha*beta*gamma*neutron*xray*alpha*beta
>
> **********************************************
> *************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:40:57 -0400
> From: Keith McCartney <MCCAKA@doe-md.gov>
> To: RADSAFE@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Plastic Scintillators
> Message-ID: <s819bfea.049@doe-md.gov>
>
> Does anyone have any experience detecting tritium with plastic
> scintillators? I realize that a plastic scintillator will have a low
> to
> nonexistent efficiency for such a low energy beta but I am interested
> in
> detecting tritium at activity levels greater than 10E6 dpm. The
> information
> that would be most helpful is a ballpark detection efficiency.
>
> Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.
>
> Keith McCartney
> Health Physicist
> BWXT of Ohio Inc.
> 937.865.4068
> mccaka@doe-md.gov
>
> *****************
> ******************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:46:55 -0400
> From: roseb@gdls.com
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: RE: Sealed Source and Device Registry (SS&D) - Where Are The
> Requ
> Message-ID: <OFB43BAA38.BC29AE29-ON85256819.006C7D8C@gdls.com>
>
> Thanks for the info Barry.  I took a look at 10CFR parts 32 and 30 and
> the
> requirement is clearly stated.
>
> Henry
>
> *****
> ******************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:24:47 EDT
> From: RADPROJECT@aol.com
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: I-125 Prostate Therapy Regs.-Comparison of complications
> vs.
> Message-ID: <0.242671fc.254b5c8f@aol.com>
>
> In a message dated 10/29/99 10:23:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> pmuldoon@mail.arc.nasa.gov writes:
>
> << Finally, as weeks go by and the cancer
>  begins to shrink, the seeds are known to migrate.  As far as unwanted
>
> exposure
>  as the seeds migrate through the bladder, this is not much different
> than any
>  other therapy as radiopharmaceuticals pass through the body and are
> excreted. >>
>
> While on the subject of I-125 use in Prostate cancer therapy there was
> a news
> item today about a 7 year study which compares the use of Pd-103 seeds
> vs.
> I-125seeds in cancer therapy which may be of interest to many Radsafe
> readers
> both from both a professional and possible personal aspect. Since
> prostate
> cancer is so common in males as they age, prostate cancer and its
> alternative
> treatments will have to be evaluated by more individuals for
> themselves and
> others.
>
> Stewart Farber
> Public Health Sciences
> [802] 496-3356
>
> ======
>
> New Clinical Study Reveals TheraSeed Associated With Lower
> Complications In
> Treatment For Prostate Cancer
>
>
> BUFORD, Ga.--(BW HealthWire)--Oct. 28, 1999--Theragenics Corporation
> (NYSE: <A
>  HREF="aol://4785:TGX">TGX</A>) today announced that a seven-year
> study
> conducted at Yale University School of Medicine demonstrates that
> patients
> receiving the Company's TheraSeed(R) palladium-103 (Pd-103) seed
> implants
> experienced significantly lower incidences of side effects than
> patients
> implanted with I-125.
>
> The results of this peer-reviewed study appear in the October 29,
> 1999, issue
> of Radiation Oncology Investigations: Clinical and Basic Research.
>
> Drs. Richard E. Peschel, M.D., Ph.D. (professor of Radiation Oncology,
> Yale
> University School of Medicine), Zhe Chen, Ph.D., Kenneth Roberts, M.D.
> and
> Ravinder Nath, Ph.D. conducted the study at Yale University in which a
> review
> of 123 early stage T1c and T2 prostate cancer patients implanted
> between 1992
> and 1999 with I-125 (82 patients) or TheraSeed(R) (41 patients)
> reveals a
> significantly lower overall complication rate with TheraSeed(R) (0%)
> versus
> I-125 (13%). Most important, the grade III-IV complication (bladder,
> urethra,
> and rectum) rate for TheraSeed(R) was 0% versus 6% for I-125. The
> three-year
> actuarial probability of remaining free of long-term complications was
> 100%
> for Pd-103 versus 82% for I-125. The study also reported that a review
> of the
> literature for 992 patients implanted with I-125 (Drs. Beyer, Blasko,
> Hu,
> Kaye and Peschel) versus 540 patients implanted with TheraSeed(R)
> (Drs.
> Blasko, Peschel and Sharkey) shows a consistently higher complication
> rate
> for I-125 versus TheraSeed(R).
>
> These findings reveal that current prostate implant programs are
> highly
> successful and that overall severe complication rates from both I-125
> and
> Pd-103 are very low when compared to other treatment modalities. A
> total of
> 11 (9%) patients of the 123 implants performed at Yale had a
> documented
> long-term complication, all of whom were implanted with I-125. No
> patient
> with a TheraSeed(R) implant has had a long-term complication. This
> study also
> suggests that improvements in the outcomes with implant therapy are
> possible,
> including better local tumor control or a reduction in moderate
> long-term
> complications.
>
> Another significant aspect of this study indicates that the minimum
> tumor
> dose (MTD) for TheraSeed(R) may be increased without compromising side
> effect
> results. By increasing the MTD of TheraSeed(R) the cell kill rate for
> TheraSeed(R) implants will be greater than that of I-125 implants for
> all
> higher grade tumors and low grade tumors.
>
> "We already know TheraSeed(R) cures cancer. However, this first of its
> kind
> study clearly indicates that men implanted with TheraSeed(R) can
> expect fewer
> complications than with competing I-125 seeds. Less complications mean
> a
> better quality of life for men choosing TheraSeed(R) for their
> prostate
> cancer treatment," said Christine Jacobs, chairman, president and CEO
> of
> Theragenics Corporation. "TheraSeed(R) was put to a rigorous test and
> performed even better than we expected."
>
> Theragenics Corporation, based in Buford, Ga., is the manufacturer of
> TheraSeed(R) - palladium-103, a rice-sized radioactive device used in
> the
> treatment of localized prostate cancer with a one-time, minimally
> invasive
> procedure. For additional information on the Company, call
> Theragenics'
> Investor Relations Department at (800) 998-8479. The Company's common
> stock
> is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol TGX.
>
> CONTACT:
>
> Theragenics Corporation
>
> Ron Warren, 1-800-998-8479 or 770/271-0233
> ******************************************
> *****************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:27:11 -0400
> From: "Dobson, Larry {Plea~Pleasanton}" <LARRY.DOBSON@ROCHE.COM>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Cc: "Lindemann, Garrett {BERK~Berkeley}" <GARRETT.LINDEMANN@ROCHE.COM>
>
> Subject: Luxel Information Received
> Message-ID:
> <0F58D4CA9429D311B70A0090272A64464A9563@rpbmsem1.ple.roche.com>
>
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not
> understand
> this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
>
> --Boundary_(ID_mWR1ts9bv8Jll8rj69KH0g)
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Hello everyone,
> I received the required information concerning Luxel dosimeters and
> use here
> in California.  Thank you to those who replied.
> I need to clarify, though, that the original question was based from a
>
> private source and not from a Federal/State source.  I've had no
> problems/questions from the state of California about use of Luxel
> dosimeters.  I was just researching information from other users to
> defend
> my position at my company.
> Thank you,
> Larry
> ________________________
> Larry Dobson, CHMM
> RMS S&E Department
> (925) 730-8112 - Direct Line
> (925) 225-0957 - Fax
> Larry.Dobson@roche.com
> ________________________
>
> --Boundary_(ID_mWR1ts9bv8Jll8rj69KH0g)
> Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
> <HTML>
> <HEAD>
> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
> charset=3Diso-8859-1">
> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
> 5.5.2448.0">
> <TITLE>Luxel Information Received</TITLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Hello everyone,</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">I received the required information
> =
> concerning Luxel dosimeters and use here in California.&nbsp; Thank
> you =
> to those who replied.&nbsp; </FONT></P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">I need to clarify, though, that the =
>
> original question was based from a private source and not from a =
> Federal/State source.&nbsp; I've had no problems/questions from the =
> state of California about use of Luxel dosimeters.&nbsp; I was just =
> researching information from other users to defend my position at my =
>
> company.&nbsp; </FONT></P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Thank you,</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Larry</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">________________________</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Larry Dobson, CHMM</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">RMS S&amp;E =
> Department</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">(925) 730-8112 - Direct =
> Line</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">(925) 225-0957 -
> Fax</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Times New =
> Roman">Larry.Dobson@roche.com&nbsp;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=3D2 =
> FACE=3D"Arial">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">________________________</FONT>
> </P>
> <BR>
>
> </BODY>
> </HTML>
>
> --Boundary_(ID_mWR1ts9bv8Jll8rj69KH0g)--
> ****************************************
> *******************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 18:12:07 -0400
> From: "Simmons, Charlie" <CSimmons@kilstock.com>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: RE: Landfill detector trips
> Message-ID: <B50941E4379ED11183B800805FBB92144767D1@XKCDC01>
>
> Regarding landfill portal monitors:
>
> I suspect that the primary motivation behind landfill owners/operators
>
> installing sensitive portal monitors is NOT a state regulatory
> requirement
> (indeed, aside from prohibitions on disposal of rad waste, I am not
> aware of
> any federal or state regulations that establish a portal monitor
> requirement, setpoint, calibration, operator training, etc.) --
> rather,
> operators of typical non-hazardous RCRA "D" landfills permitted to
> receive
> non-hazardous waste do not want to incur any cleanup liability for rad
>
> contamination under CERCLA ("Superfund") or comparable state law.
> Portal
> monitors are prevalent and their use is expanding, without comparable
> education, training, or standardization. The usual practice seems to
> be a
> "background zero" which results in many hits.
>
> This phenomenon is presenting increasing difficulties for persons who
> dispose of refractory materials, among other non-RCRA industrial solid
>
> wastes that are slightly elevated in natural U and Th.  My
> understanding is
> that some states provide informal guidance; and CRCPD has drafted a
> guidance
> document, but more education is needed since portal monitors are
> evolving
> into a  "practice."
>
> Charles Simmons
> Counsel for the
> Zirconium Environmental Committee
> csimmons@kilstock.com
> 202/508-5806
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: steve.rima@DOEGJPO.COM [mailto:steve.rima@DOEGJPO.COM]
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 1:43 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re[2]: Release of I-131 Patients
>
>      I too have had the fun of looking into a couple of sanitary
> landfill
>      alarms. I don't believe that we can lay this problem at the feet
> of
>      the NRC or any other regulatory agency, at least in most cases.
> Where
>      I've looked into alarms at landfills, the alarm setpoint was
>      arbitrarily set by the landfill (or the company that installed
> their
>      detection system), and not by any regulatory requirements. I've
> seen
>      the same thing at scrap metal yards. How many states have
> regulations
>      that even require such monitors, let alone mandate the alarm
> setpoint?
>
>      No matter what the limits are, there will always be those who
> will
>      want their landfills to admit "no radioactive material", along
> with
>      the companies making and installing such instruments. I don't see
> this
>      particular problem going away no matter what contamination limits
> are
>      set by NRC. I see it getting worse as instrument manufacturers
> make
>      even more sensitive instruments that they push landfills to buy.
>
>      Steven D. Rima, CHP, CSP
>      Manager, Health Physics and Industrial Hygiene
>      MACTEC-ERS, LLC
>      steven.rima@doegjpo.com
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
>      <snip>
>
>      Carol Marcus wrote:
>
>
> Dear Mark and Radsafers:
>
> The problem was not the patient who was released.  The problem is
> NRC's
> nonsensical requirements at power plants.  Fix those.
>
> We had a related incident in Los Angeles at a sanitary landfill that
> had
> installed highly sensitive NaI(Tl) detectors.  We were picking up
> diapers
> and other remnants of nuclear medicine procedures.  One day Rad Health
> spent
>
> hours trying to locate the radioactive trash in a truck, and it turned
> out
> that the driver had had an NaI-123 thyroid scan and when he drove the
> truck
> past the detectors, he set them off. We fixed the problem.  We
> measured all
> trash with nuclear medicine contamination, and set the baseline of the
>
> detector at 10x background and stopped "discovering" this problem.
> All was
> fine for years until a different agency took over, set the meter at 3x
>
> background, and this "problem" occurred again.
>
> The problem is not the patients.  It is foolish regulators who set
> limits
> that are irrational, and cause all sorts of silly "problems" as a
> result.
> Today, we have portable spectrometers and can even relay spectrometry
> information to anyone with an identification program.  We could solve
> this
> "problem" with state-of-the-art technology and good scientific sense.
> Hello?  NRC?  Is anyone home?  Is this going to be the basis for the
> new
> solid waste regs, or is it going to be another negotiated settlement
> with
> antinuke hysterical liars?
>
> Ciao, Carol
>
> Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D.
> <csmarcus@ucla.edu>
>
> *******************
> ****************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RADSAFE Digest 2738
> **************************



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html