[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: RADSAFE digest 2755
I have a question that was brought to my attention by a patient's family
that I was unable to answer. Do tropical fruits grown outside of the US
contain any type of detectable radiation levels? Thanks for your feedback!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu [SMTP:radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu]
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 6:40 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: RADSAFE digest 2755
>
> RADSAFE Digest 2755
>
> Topics covered in this issue include:
>
> 1) Re: Estimating doses from criticality accidents
> by Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>
> 2) RE: Fissile DOT Shipment Question
> by "Boston, Robert D" <bostonrd@id.doe.gov>
> 3) GEORGE O'BANNION
> by GAMMATRON <GAMMAT@swbell.net>
> 4) Re: GEORGE O'BANNION
> by Alan Roecklein <AKR@nrc.gov>
> 5) RE: David Lochbaum (again) and TMI case
> by "Weiner, Ruth" <rfweine@sandia.gov>
> 6) California Tritium Release Limit
> by steve.rima@DOEGJPO.COM (Steven Rima)
> 7) "blowout" theory
> by FIELDRW@aol.com
> 8) Magnetic Field interference
> by Salladay John L PORT <SalladayJL@mail.ports.navy.mil>
> 9) Re: David Lochbaum (again) and TMI case
> by Neon John <johngd@bellsouth.net>
> 10) Counting Sadistics
> by "Redmond, Randy R. (RXQ) " <RXQ@ornl.gov>
> 11) Re: Magnetic Field interference
> by "David Whitfill/Kdhe" <DWhitfil@kdhe.state.ks.us>
> 12) RE: Magnetic Field interference
> by "Beasley, Charles W." <CWBeasley@sprg.smhs.com>
> 13) Notice No. 82-49 for Air and Gas Monitoring
> by Jim Kost <jkost@mgpi.com>
> 14) Re: Notice No. 82-49 for Air and Gas Monitoring
> by Wade Loo <WTL@nrc.gov>
> 15) Found and Received Notice No. 82-49 for Air and Gas Monitoring
> by Jim Kost <jkost@mgpi.com>
> 16) RE: "blowout" theory
> by "Weiner, Ruth" <rfweine@sandia.gov>
> 17) Re: David Lochbaum (again) and TMI case
> by Bob Flood <bflood@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>
> 18) RE: Magnetic Field interference
> by "Morgan, Ben" <ben.morgan@cplc.com>
> 19) RE: Long Island cancer? (Newsweek)
> by "Heinmiller, Bruce" <heinmillerb@aecl.ca>
> 20) Re:Counting Sadistics
> by Rodney Bauman <rodney_bauman@wssrap-host.wssrap.com>
> 21) Re: Magnetic Field interference
> by "Bjorn Cedervall" <bcradsafers@hotmail.com>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:22:45 -0500 (EST)
> From: Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Re: Estimating doses from criticality accidents
> Message-ID:
> <Pine.GSO.3.96L.991108091123.18175C-100000@unixs4.cis.pitt.edu>
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 g2v13a@swbell.net wrote:
>
> > My thanks to Tosh Ushino, Douglas Minnema, and David Whitfil - you are
> helping a
> > "medical-type" understand the tragic events of a few weeks ago [and the
> drama
> > still unfolding]. You are welcome to my part of the bandwidth.
>
> What is so extraordinarily "tragic" about these events? Dozens of
> workers are killed every day in industrial accidents in U.S. alone. Over a
> hundred are killed every day in motor vehicle accidents. This accident
> involved 3 people who made a very serious mistake and are suffering for
> it. Our hospitals contain perhaps a million people who are suffering from
> problems that are not of their own making.
>
>
> Bernard L Cohen
> University of Pittsburgh
> Pittsburgh, PA 15260
> Tel: (412)624-9245
> Fax: (412)624-9163
> e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:23:26 -0700
> From: "Boston, Robert D" <bostonrd@id.doe.gov>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: RE: Fissile DOT Shipment Question
> Message-ID: <C0744DB355C3D2119CDA0008C7A49D92014731F6@doexch01.INEL.GOV>
>
> Generally, if the amount of fissile material is >15g then you will have to
> demonstrate the safety of the fissile material. You will be able to do
> this
> using handbook (or single parameter limits) available in ANSI/ANS 8.1.
> The
> regulations applicable are in 49CFR172 (or 173, its been a little while
> since I've worked with fissile material transport).
>
> The opinions stated here are clearly my own.
>
> Robert Boston Nuclear Safety/Operational Readiness
> DOE-ID
> 850 Energy Drive MS 4160
> Idaho Falls, ID 83401-1563
> 208-526-0356 pager 6-4444 #4413 Fax 6-7414
> bostonrd@id.doe.gov
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gregory R. Larson [SMTP:larsongr@email.cind.ornl.gov]
> > Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 12:14 PM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: Fissile DOT Shipment Question
> >
> > To All,
> >
> > Have a DOT question...
> >
> > Need some assistance with how the DOT regs work with this situation;
> waste
> > consisting of soil, concrete, rubble, etc. has quantifiable Uranium with
> > an enrichment of 11.7%, material would be considered homogenous due to
> the
> > waste matrix composition. All characterization data and identified
> decay
> > chains are consistent with the parent and progeny activity ratios.
> > Summation of all activity is less than 70 Bq/gram therefore does not
> meet
> > the definition of DOT rad material. Summation of the fissile gram
> > equivalents equates to approximately 32 grams total in the container.
> >
> > Based on this data, this waste does not meet the definition of Class 7
> > material. Does the fissile quantity come into consideration in any
> > fashion or is this simply a DOT non rad shipment?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your help...
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Greg Larson
> > ORNL LWS Waste Characterization Coordinator
> > Office: (423) 241-3273
> > E-mail: larsongr@ornl.gov
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > 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: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 08:48:51 -0600
> From: GAMMATRON <GAMMAT@swbell.net>
> To: RADSAFE@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: GEORGE O'BANNION
> Message-ID: <3826E2D3.3918@swbell.net>
>
> I would like to make notice of the passing of George O'Bannion on
> November 5, 1999.
>
> George has been a member of Radsafe for several years.
>
> George was 81 years old.
> A graduate of the University of Texas in Physics.
> He served as an officer of the U.S. Army Signal Corp in the Pacific
> during World War II.
> George worked for Welex Corporation (presently Halliburton Logging
> Services) from the years of 1953 through 1977, first as a field engineer
> and later as Radiation Safety Officer.
> Since 1977, George has worked as a consultant for Nuclear Sources and
> Services Inc. in Houston, Texas.
> George was a member of both the national and South Texas chapter of the
> Health Physics Society.
>
> Like all "old timers", George takes a great deal of knowledge with him.
> He will be missed.
>
> Charles Gallagher
> Gammatron, Inc.
> Gammat@swbell.net
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:29:59 -0500
> From: Alan Roecklein <AKR@nrc.gov>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: GEORGE O'BANNION
> Message-ID: <s826a646.098@nrcsmtp.nrc.gov>
>
> Steve,
> Didnt you or someone in the old branch work with O'Bannion?
>
> AKR@NRC.GOV
>
> >>> GAMMATRON <GAMMAT@swbell.net> 11/08 9:53 AM >>>
> I would like to make notice of the passing of George O'Bannion on
> November 5, 1999.
>
> George has been a member of Radsafe for several years.
>
> George was 81 years old.
> A graduate of the University of Texas in Physics.
> He served as an officer of the U.S. Army Signal Corp in the Pacific
> during World War II.
> George worked for Welex Corporation (presently Halliburton Logging
> Services) from the years of 1953 through 1977, first as a field engineer
> and later as Radiation Safety Officer.
> Since 1977, George has worked as a consultant for Nuclear Sources and
> Services Inc. in Houston, Texas.
> George was a member of both the national and South Texas chapter of the
> Health Physics Society.
>
> Like all "old timers", George takes a great deal of knowledge with him.
> He will be missed.
>
> Charles Gallagher
> Gammatron, Inc.
> Gammat@swbell.net
> ************************************************************************
> 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: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:44:45 -0700
> From: "Weiner, Ruth" <rfweine@sandia.gov>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: RE: David Lochbaum (again) and TMI case
> Message-ID:
> <890B12B8398AD211BC6100805FA784A205454416@es04snlnt.sandia.gov>
>
> Thank you, Steve. The whole "blowout" theory contains a fundamental
> fallacy: any plume will disperse from a stack like any other plume.
> Dispersion is a function of the ambient weather conditions and the wind,
> not
> the plume. The heat content of the plume determines largely how high the
> plume goes BEFORE it disperses downwind (the "effective stack height").
> I
> spoke at a meeting at Whitman College in the early 80s, on the same
> platform
> as one of our current more prominent anti-nukes, who came out with this
> same
> sort of thing -- that a plume can travel hundreds of miles undispersed. I
> corrected him. It turned out that an EPA expert on air dispersion was in
> the audience and complimented me. I always wondered where the idea of the
> non-dispersing plume had come from.
>
> Clearly only my own opinion.
>
> Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
> Sandia National Laboratories
> MS 0718, POB 5800
> Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
> 505-844-4791; fax 505-844-0244
> rfweine@sandia.gov
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Dapra [mailto:sjd@iolnm.net]
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 10:31 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: David Lochbaum (again) and TMI case
>
>
> Nov. 5
>
> In October (1999) a number of messages were posted about David
> Lochbaum.
> They began with Bernard L. Cohen's objection to a news item on NPR about
> the recent Japanese nuclear plant accident, and became more vigorous when
> it was revealed that Lochbaum was connected with the Union of Concerned
> Scientists. Finally the discussion died out.
>
> Then, on Nov. 3, a posting ("Three Mile Island Suits Reinstated")
> included
> a link to the decision by the appellate court that overturned Judge Sylvia
> Rambo's decision in favor of the defendants. The appellate court's
> decision is found at <http://pacer.ca3.uscourts.gov/>.
>
> I read portions of the decision, and whose name should appear - on
> behalf
> of the plaintiffs - but David Lochbaum's. Below are two portions of the
> appellate court's decision that refer to Lochbaum. (He is mentioned in
> other places as well.) I have inserted some paragraphs, deleted the
> citations to other decisions, and deleted legal abbreviations such as "id"
> to make this easier to read.
>
> This quote begins near the bottom of page 76 and is continued on
> page 77.
>
> "To support their contention that they were each exposed to
> significantly
> higher doses of ionizing radiation than the governmental studies
> calculated, and the defendants admit to, the Trial Plaintiffs developed a
> "blowout" theory. Under that theory, one or more unfiltered hydrogen
> blowouts occurred on the afternoon of the first day of the accident,
> whereby large quantities of radioactive noble gases and other radioactive
> nuclides, such as iodine and cesium, were expelled into the environment.
> They assert that, after the blowout, an extremely dense, yet narrow, plume
> of radioactive effluents traveled through the atmosphere evading all of
> the
> radiation monitors in place in the areas surrounding the plant and the
> communities. The "blowout" theory was first developed by Trial
> Plaintiffs'
> expert, Richard Webb, who opined in a report that a total of 106 million
> curies of noble gases were released during the accident, more than half of
> which escaped during a two and one-half hour "blowout" on the afternoon of
> the first day of the accident. Webb did not testify at the in limine
> Daubert hearing. After the first round of hearings ended, Webb left a
> voice-mail message for defendants' counsel recanting his proposed
> testimony. The District Court concluded that Webb's recantation only
> confirmed its intention to exclude Webb's proffered testimony as
> unreliable.
>
> "However, because of the significance of the "blowout" theory to
> plaintiffs' case, the District Court did permit the Trial Plaintiffs to
> use
> another witness -- a nuclear engineer named David Lochbaum -- to replace
> Webb's testimony about a blowout. Lochbaum testified at an in limine
> hearing that significantly more than 10 million curies of noble gases
> reached the environment as a result of the accident. He opined that these
> gases were released from steam generator B in the early hours of the
> accident. However, somewhat contradictorily, he also testified that he
> "did
> not believe that there was evidence of a blowout." He testified, however,
> that if a blowout did occur, it was of limited length -- on the order of
> minutes and not over the two or three hours Webb believed. Nonetheless,
> he
> testified that the blowout did release significant amounts of noble gases
> even though it lasted only a short time.
>
> "The District Court concluded that Lochbaum's testimony was
> dependent upon
> other of the Trial Plaintiffs' experts being able to demonstrate that
> significant amounts of radionuclides were emitted. The court reasoned that
> if other experts were able to competently testify about significant
> amounts
> of noble gases being emitted, then Lochbaum's testimony was admissible on
> the issue of the source of the emissions. Thus, the court concluded that
> if
> no other expert could competently testify about significant releases of
> radionuclides, Lochbaum's proffered testimony about a blowout must be
> excluded. Consequently, the trial plaintiffs proffered several witnesses
> whose testimony was relevant to the existence of a blowout."
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> This quote is found on page 179.
>
> "Because the Trial Plaintiffs elected to try their cases on the
> theory
> that they were exposed to equivalent doses of at least 10 rems each, they
> had to produce evidence of that degree of exposure. The District Court
> reasoned that the crucial causation issue was the Trial Plaintiffs'
> ability
> to produce admissible source term evidence. However, at the time of the
> summary judgment motions, the Trial Plaintiffs had no admissible source
> term evidence. The only possible source term evidence was Lochbaum's
> equivocal "blowout" testimony, which the District Court had earlier
> determined would be admissible only if the Trial Plaintiffs' other experts
> could demonstrate that significant amounts of radionuclides were released
> as a result of the accident. However, because of earlier exclusionary
> rulings there was no other admissible source term evidence, and,
> consequently, the District Court found that "there is insufficient dose
> evidence . . . to make Lochbaum's testimony helpful to the trier of fact."
>
>
> "The District Court also found that Lochbaum's blowout testimony was
> so
> equivocal that it "lacked the certainty of a professional judgment" and
> was, therefore, insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment." 173
> [footnote - see below] Consequently, the District Court found that the
> Trial Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the reactor accident released
> high concentrations of radioactive materials to the environment. In
> brief,
> the Trial Plaintiffs had no evidence that they were exposed to 10 rems of
> ionizing radiation and, therefore, there was no material factual dispute
> in
> regard to causation."
>
> "173. The Trial Plaintiffs' do not challenge the District Court's
> exclusion of Lochbaum's testimony or its finding that his testimony would
> not be sufficient to defeat the defendants' summary judgment motion. In
> fact, his name is only mentioned in passing."
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Summary and comments -
>
> The plaintiff's first expert witness abruptly quit and they found
> another
> witness in the person of David Lochbaum whose testimony was "equivocal"
> (p.
> 179), and eventually the Court did not accept it. It is interesting (or
> perhaps revealing) that the Plaintiffs did not object to Lochbaum's
> testimony being excluded. (The "Daubert hearing" (p. 76) had to do with
> determing if certain witnesses were qualified to serve as expert
> witnesses.
> This explanation may be a little over-simplified, but that is the
> substance of the hearing. I'm not a lawyer, but gleaned that from reading
> the part of the decision about the hearing.)
>
> It's interesting, isn't it, how certain people's names keep cropping
> up
> the the same general places - Caldicott, Gofman, Lochbaum, Sternglass,
> Wing; and there are others too. It's almost like the anti-nukers and the
> popular press maintain a list of those who can be counted on to deliver an
> anti-nuclear message, or take up the anti-nuclear cause.
>
> Steven Dapra
> Albuquerque, NM
>
> sjd@iolnm.net
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:14:20 -0700
> From: steve.rima@DOEGJPO.COM (Steven Rima)
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: California Tritium Release Limit
> Message-ID: <0005F0BB.3388@DOEGJPO.COM>
>
> Help! I've been asked what the California release limit is for
> removeable tritium. Does California have such a limit in their
> regulations, and if so, what is it? (This is for unrestricted release
>
> of items and materials.)
>
> Steven D. Rima, CHP, CSP
> Manager, Health Physics and Industrial Hygiene
> MACTEC-ERS, LLC
> steven.rima@doegjpo.com
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:28:58 EST
> From: FIELDRW@aol.com
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: "blowout" theory
> Message-ID: <0.52aeebd7.2558706a@aol.com>
>
> Ruth,
>
> I am not necessarily in disagreement with you, but weren't you a bit
> surprised at Van Middlesworth's paper that attributed elevated I-131
> levels
> in animal thyroids in England to TMI releases?
>
> Regards, Bill Field
>
>
> College of Public Health
> Department of Epidemiology
> University of Iowa
> bill-field@uiowa.edu
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:42:06 -0500
> From: Salladay John L PORT <SalladayJL@mail.ports.navy.mil>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Magnetic Field interference
> Message-ID:
> <4351550A65ECD21181620000BC0E3BB611BF37@sptsvr012.ports.navy.mil>
>
> RADSAFERS,
>
> Has anyone run across interference on PMT's that was due to magnetic
> fields?
> If so, I would appreciate any information you could forward to me.
>
> Thanks in Advance
>
>
>
> John L. Salladay, CHP
> jlsalladay@mail.ports.navy.mil
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 14:31:03 -0500
> From: Neon John <johngd@bellsouth.net>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: David Lochbaum (again) and TMI case
> Message-ID: <382724F7.71B49BE6@bellsouth.net>
>
>
>
> "Weiner, Ruth" wrote:
> >
> > Thank you, Steve. The whole "blowout" theory contains a fundamental
> > fallacy: any plume will disperse from a stack like any other plume.
> > Dispersion is a function of the ambient weather conditions and the wind,
> not
> > the plume. The heat content of the plume determines largely how high
> the
> > plume goes BEFORE it disperses downwind (the "effective stack height").
> I
> > spoke at a meeting at Whitman College in the early 80s, on the same
> platform
> > as one of our current more prominent anti-nukes, who came out with this
> same
> > sort of thing -- that a plume can travel hundreds of miles undispersed.
> I
> > corrected him. It turned out that an EPA expert on air dispersion was
> in
> > the audience and complimented me. I always wondered where the idea of
> the
> > non-dispersing plume had come from.
>
> I think we did it to ourselves again. Early in my career when my
> main assignment was to become close personal friends with TVA's
> Sequoyah NP FSAR, I used to find it so fascinating that the
> projected plume models from an accident were drawn as either neat
> little cigar-shaped clouds or neat little pencil-shaped clouds.
> Sharp boundaries and all. It took one of those "shower
> inspirations" for me to realize that a real plume would not behave
> that way and that the maps were simply shorthand representations.
> Another example of our shorthand being used against us.
>
> John
>
> --
> John De Armond
> johngdSPAMNOT@bellsouth.net
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:30:58 -0500
> From: "Redmond, Randy R. (RXQ) " <RXQ@ornl.gov>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Counting Sadistics
> Message-ID:
> <811396C72B51D1119F8F0000F803D6D8092E0768@exchange10.ctd.ornl.gov>
>
> One of my favorite subjects is counting statistics - or "sadistics" as I
> affectionately call them. When calculating the total DAC-Fraction for a
> mixture, the ratios of the concentration of the particular radionuclide
> and
> its corresponding DAC are summed. My question - If the result for a
> particular radionuclide is negative or less than the critical level how
> are
> you dealing with this when summing the ratios?
>
> This would also apply to bioassay results, etc..
>
> Randy Redmond
> Lockheed Martin Energy Systems
> P.O. Box 2009
> Bldg. 9769, MS 8081
> Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8081
> Email: rxq@y12.doe.gov
> Phone: 423-574-5640
> Fax: 423-576-6047
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:08:41 -0600
> From: "David Whitfill/Kdhe" <DWhitfil@kdhe.state.ks.us>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: Magnetic Field interference
> Message-ID: <OFCB554707.EF27E7BA-ON86256823.006CD878@kdhe.state.ks.us>
>
>
> Referencing Knoll's Radiation Detection and Measurement (2nd ed., ISBN
> 0-471-81504-7, p. 274-B.Magnetic shielding):
>
> "The electron optics within a PM tube are particularly sensitive to stray
> magnetic fields because of the low average energy (on the order of 100 eV)
> of the electrons traveling from stage to stage...In situations in which
> the
> tube is likely to be...brought near equipment with stray magnetic fields,
> it is essential that a magnetic shield be provided to prevent gain shifts
> of the PM tube. The most common form consists of a thin cylinder of
> mu-metal which fits closely around the outside glass envelope of the PM
> tube. For most tube designs, this shield must be held at photocathode
> potential in order to avoid noise due to electroluminescence in the glass
> envelope."
>
> It would probably be best to contact the manufacturer of the PM tube for
> their recommendations.
>
> Here is link of interest:
>
> http://magnetic-shield.com/faqs.html
>
> The following is from the above site (Magnetic Shield Corporation):
>
> What is Mumetal®? (or mu-metal or mewmetal, or moometal or newmetal?)
>
> Mumetal® is one registered trade name for a high-permeability,
> magnetically
> "soft" alloy used for magnetic shielding.
> Hipernom®, HyMu-80®. Permalloy®, and other names refer to one of the two
> typical formulas for this alloy. Both include about 80% nickel and 15%
> iron, with the balance being copper, molybdenum or chromium, depending on
> the recipe being used. The term mumetal is often used as a generic term,
> as
> Kleenex® is used for any facial tissue. Magnetic Shield Corporation's
> registered trademark for our shielding alloy is CO-NETIC AA® (Other
> trademarks shown are
> property of their respective owners).
>
>
>
>
>
> Salladay John L PORT <SalladayJL@mail.ports.navy.mil>@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> on 11/08/99 12:48:37 PM
>
> Please respond to radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>
> Sent by: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>
>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> cc:
>
> Subject: Magnetic Field interference
>
>
> RADSAFERS,
>
> Has anyone run across interference on PMT's that was due to magnetic
> fields?
> If so, I would appreciate any information you could forward to me.
>
> Thanks in Advance
>
>
>
> John L. Salladay, CHP
> jlsalladay@mail.ports.navy.mil
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:11:57 -0600
> From: "Beasley, Charles W." <CWBeasley@sprg.smhs.com>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: RE: Magnetic Field interference
> Message-ID: <199911082013.OAA18040@postoffice.smhs.com>
>
> About 17 years ago the hospital I was working at got their first MRI
> scanner. We placed a mobile gamma camera that had 37 PMTs at varying
> distances from the magnet. I cannot recall at what distance we noticed
> nonuniformities occur. I can tell you that Siemens Medical does not
> recommend cameras within magnetic fringe fields of 0.05mT.
>
> Charles Beasley
>
> > ----------
> > From: Salladay John L PORT[SMTP:SalladayJL@mail.ports.navy.mil]
> > Reply To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> > Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 12:48
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: Magnetic Field interference
> >
> > RADSAFERS,
> >
> > Has anyone run across interference on PMT's that was due to magnetic
> > fields?
> > If so, I would appreciate any information you could forward to me.
> >
> > Thanks in Advance
> >
> >
> >
> > John L. Salladay, CHP
> > jlsalladay@mail.ports.navy.mil
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > 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: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:05:39 -0500
> From: Jim Kost <jkost@mgpi.com>
> To: "RADSAFE (E-mail)" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Notice No. 82-49 for Air and Gas Monitoring
> Message-ID: <33F3A166EB59D11180B300A0C97863761E19C6@mgpi_nts4_pdc>
>
> Could someone either fax me or direct me to the right location (NRC web
> page) where I can get NRC Notice No. 82-49, "Correction for Sample
> Conditions for Air and Gas Monitoring" as soon as possible.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim Kost
> Radiological Engineer
> MGP Instruments
> Email: jkost@mgpi.com
> Work: (770) 432-2744 ext. 116
> Fax: (770) 432-9179
> Cell: (678) 296-1663
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 15:35:35 -0500
> From: Wade Loo <WTL@nrc.gov>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: Notice No. 82-49 for Air and Gas Monitoring
> Message-ID: <s826ede0.079@nrcsmtp.nrc.gov>
>
> Go NRC's webpage (NRC.GOV). Click on "Reference library" icon. Then
> click on "Information Notices" and then go to year and then reference no.
>
> >>> Jim Kost <jkost@mgpi.com> 11/08 3:29 PM >>>
> Could someone either fax me or direct me to the right location (NRC web
> page) where I can get NRC Notice No. 82-49, "Correction for Sample
> Conditions for Air and Gas Monitoring" as soon as possible.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim Kost
> Radiological Engineer
> MGP Instruments
> Email: jkost@mgpi.com
> Work: (770) 432-2744 ext. 116
> Fax: (770) 432-9179
> Cell: (678) 296-1663
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:28:00 -0500
> From: Jim Kost <jkost@mgpi.com>
> To: "RADSAFE (E-mail)" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Found and Received Notice No. 82-49 for Air and Gas Monitoring
> Message-ID: <33F3A166EB59D11180B300A0C97863761E19C8@mgpi_nts4_pdc>
>
> Thanks for the fast response everyone.
>
> Jim Kost
> Radiological Engineer
> MGP Instruments
> Email: jkost@mgpi.com
> Work: (770) 432-2744 ext. 116
> Cell: (678) 296-1663
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:12:35 -0700
> From: "Weiner, Ruth" <rfweine@sandia.gov>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: RE: "blowout" theory
> Message-ID:
> <890B12B8398AD211BC6100805FA784A20545441B@es04snlnt.sandia.gov>
>
> Didn't see it but yes, I'm surprised. I also got in a brouhaha once with
> the Dade County (FL) air pollution control people who claimed their
> atmospheric nitrogen oxides blew in from Ohio (especially given wind
> directions in Dade County).
>
> Clearly only my own opinion.
>
> Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
> Sandia National Laboratories
> MS 0718, POB 5800
> Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
> 505-844-4791; fax 505-844-0244
> rfweine@sandia.gov
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: FIELDRW@aol.com [mailto:FIELDRW@aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:36 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: "blowout" theory
>
>
> Ruth,
>
> I am not necessarily in disagreement with you, but weren't you a bit
> surprised at Van Middlesworth's paper that attributed elevated I-131
> levels
> in animal thyroids in England to TMI releases?
>
> Regards, Bill Field
>
>
> College of Public Health
> Department of Epidemiology
> University of Iowa
> bill-field@uiowa.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: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 12:47:27 -0800
> From: Bob Flood <bflood@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: David Lochbaum (again) and TMI case
> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19991108124727.00b3c540@popserv.slac.stanford.edu>
>
> At 01:35 PM 11/8/1999 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> >I used to find it so fascinating that the
> >projected plume models from an accident were drawn as either neat
> >little cigar-shaped clouds or neat little pencil-shaped clouds.
> >Sharp boundaries and all.
>
> Usually such plots represent the net effect on the ground and not the
> location of the entire plume. The neat, cigar shape is the plume footprint
> with plotted area being those places where the total dose is greater than
> X
> mrem (where X is an absurdly small number). The pencil shape usually comes
> from a night-time release into an inversion (stability class G) with very
> little wind variability (small sigma theta), which can result in a very
> narrow plume - it's just not on the ground. Still, there is a sky-shine
> dose to the people under it.
>
> Dispersion models share two characteristics: (1) nice smooth data sets
> derived from equations, and (2) the real thing is never that smooth (or
> even close).
>
> ===================================
> Bob Flood
> Dosimetry Group Leader
> Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
> (650) 926-3793
> bflood@slac.stanford.edu
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 16:20:02 -0500
> From: "Morgan, Ben" <ben.morgan@cplc.com>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: RE: Magnetic Field interference
> Message-ID: <D57693709D03D31197980001FA7E09D941DE32@nt000031>
>
> Greetings:
>
> I've seen a report of a reduction in counts due to magnetic field
> interference with PMTs in a cabinet-type tool monitor. This occurred when
> the monitor was used to survey an electric motor which had large,
> permanent
> magnets in it.
>
> We did some testing on a similar monitor and found that even a small
> magnet
> can cause this effect if it's placed too near the PMT.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ben
>
> ben.morgan@cplc.com
>
> Question:
>
> RADSAFERS,
>
> Has anyone run across interference on PMT's that was due to magnetic
> fields?
> If so, I would appreciate any information you could forward to me.
>
> Thanks in Advance
>
> John L. Salladay, CHP
> jlsalladay@mail.ports.navy.mil
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:41:33 -0500
> From: "Heinmiller, Bruce" <heinmillerb@aecl.ca>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: RE: Long Island cancer? (Newsweek)
> Message-ID: <F1A83ECE5B26D3118A3800805FEAA76189D1E2@crs19.crl.aecl.ca>
>
> The Newsweek statement, "They have found that levels are as high as during
> the 1950s...", implies that the current mean level of Sr-90 in teeth is
> similar to the mean level during the 1950s, and is at odds with statements
> made even by RPHP in their earlier buffoonery. So in preparation of this
> Newsweek article someone, either RPHP or Newsweek, has misrepresented the
> current levels claimed by RPHP.
>
> As to the RPHP claim of a statistical correlation between the levels of
> Sr-90 and the incidence of RMS, and their characterization of this as an
> epidemic, there are two obvious questions left unanswered by Newsweek:
>
> 1) Would the delivered dose implied by the reported levels of Sr-90 be
> high
> enough to explain the purported increase in RMS? [No.]
> 2) Was there a world-wide epidemic of RMS in the 1950s and 1960s? [I'll
> guess No.]
>
> Bruce Heinmiller CHP
> heinmillerb@aecl.ca
>
> > ----------
> > From: Bjorn Cedervall[SMTP:bcradsafers@hotmail.com]
> > Reply To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 1:47 PM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: Long Island cancer? (Newsweek)
> >
> > The rabdomyosarcoma has now reached Newsweek (Suffolk County,
> Brookhaven,
> > Sr-90, baby teeth, RPHP, etc).
> > http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/tnw/today/ex/front.htm
> >
> > Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers@hotmail.com
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> > ************************************************************************
> > 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: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 15:18:00 -0600
> From: Rodney Bauman <rodney_bauman@wssrap-host.wssrap.com>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re:Counting Sadistics
> Message-ID: <9911089420.AA942095887@wssrap-host.wssrap.com>
>
> If the critical level is established at an appropriate concentration
> (e.g., less
> than or equal to 10% of the isotope's DAC value), then I wouldn't include
> isotopic results less than the critical level.
>
> Rodney Bauman, CHP, RRPT
> rodney_bauman@wssrap-host.wssrap.com
>
> ____________________Reply Separator____________________
> Subject: Counting Sadistics
> Author: <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Date: 11/8/99 1:39 PM
>
> One of my favorite subjects is counting statistics - or "sadistics" as I
> affectionately call them. When calculating the total DAC-Fraction for a
> mixture, the ratios of the concentration of the particular radionuclide
> and
> its corresponding DAC are summed. My question - If the result for a
> particular radionuclide is negative or less than the critical level how
> are
> you dealing with this when summing the ratios?
>
> This would also apply to bioassay results, etc..
>
> Randy Redmond
> Lockheed Martin Energy Systems
> P.O. Box 2009
> Bldg. 9769, MS 8081
> Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8081
> Email: rxq@y12.doe.gov
> Phone: 423-574-5640
> Fax: 423-576-6047
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 00:30:32 CET
> From: "Bjorn Cedervall" <bcradsafers@hotmail.com>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: Magnetic Field interference
> Message-ID: <19991108233032.3165.qmail@hotmail.com>
>
> >Has anyone run across interference on PMT's that was due to magnetic
> >fields?
> If PMT refers to menstruation (from my written notes: "It stimulates just
> for that" - it was an oval metallic plate about 3-4 inches long) - I heard
>
> about it today as part of a 90 min. talk I had to listen to - most of it
> was
> about magnetic clothing etc - they even had a "petpad" (many animals have
> magnetic sensors but this was about cats, dogs and horses I understood).
> They also sold socks that "kept the infrared rays in order". Any numbers
> mentioned were about how much money one can make in a short time. It is
> indeed very interesting to hear the reasoning, "logic", vitnesses,
> semantics
> etc that these people use. The company name is Nikken - U.S. based I guess
>
> (some center in Anaheim?).
> Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers@hotmail.com
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> ************************************************************************
> 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 2755
> **************************
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html