[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: RADSAFE digest 2775
Dear Colleges,
I agree with Mr. Ferguson's approach (and other responses similar to his)
for responding to these types of question. In my opinion some of the public
mistrust toward scientific community, especially in the case of Nuclear
science, steams from the fact that we expect that every member of the public
should have similar level of understanding of the subject as we do! More
often than less instead of responding to questions in a responsible and
controlled manner we (I included) tend to become more reactionary and
offended by the question and provide the answer in a less palatable way and
perhaps turn the questioner off. Even though the answer provided could not
have been more correct, but responding with a condescending tone might have
caused a wrong impression of the whole field in Amanda's and Amanda's like
mind, which takes a lot of effort to rectify. Best regards,
All views expressed are my own, and do not represent the views of Bechtel
Jacobs Co LLC.
Mahmoud H Haghighi, Ph. D.
Senior Nuclear Physicist
Bechtel Jacobs Co., LLC
MSRE Conversion Project TM/MSRE PS
ORNL-P (MS 6427)
(423) 576-3473 (V)
(423) 241-6707 (F)
(423) 417-5092 (PG)
haghighimh@ornl.gov or o51@ ornl.gov
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu [SMTP:radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 3:09 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: RADSAFE digest 2775
>
> RADSAFE Digest 2775
>
> Topics covered in this issue include:
>
> 1) RE: HFBR
> by "Harmon, Charles D" <cdharmo@sandia.gov>
> 2) Re: Fwd: Radiation Exposures to Tokai Workers
> by "Michael C. Baker" <mcbaker@lanl.gov>
> 3) Closing of Brookhaven Reactor
> by Susan Gawarecki <loc@icx.net>
> 4) Surface finish for RP/ALARA purposes
> by Robin_Siskel@notes.ymp.gov
> 5) RE: Fwd: Radiation Exposures to Tokai Workers
> by "Heinmiller, Bruce" <heinmillerb@aecl.ca>
> 6) Epidemiology and Nuclear Power Plants
> by "Strom, Daniel J" <daniel.j.strom@pnl.gov>
> 7) Re[2]: Questions
> by "Riasp Medora"<Riasp.Medora@fernald.gov>
> 8) Job Opening - Penn State University
> by "Russel O. Dunkelberger II" <rod1@psu.edu>
> 9) High Flux Beam Reactor
> by "Potter, Charles" <capotte@sandia.gov>
> 10) RE: Fwd: Radiation Exposures to Tokai Workers
> by "Potter, Charles" <capotte@sandia.gov>
> 11) Re: Epidemiology and Nuclear Power Plants
> by "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
> 12) Job Posting - Dosimetry Position - Brookhaven National Laboratory
> by "Kahnhauser, Henry F" <kahnhaus@bnl.gov>
> 13) RE: D&D Code
> by "Morgan, Ben" <ben.morgan@cplc.com>
> 14) Re: Questions
> by Todd Maxwell <toddmax@scripps.edu>
> 15) RE: Questions
> by Stephen_C_Van_Slycke@RL.gov
> 16) Re: Question on Environment Links to Cancer & Incidence Near Nuclear
> by Robin_Siskel@notes.ymp.gov
> 17) RE: Questions
> by "Edwards, Richard W" <Richard.Edwards@PSS.Boeing.com>
> 18) student request
> by Kjell Johansen <kjell.johansen@wepco.com>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:15:15 -0700
> From: "Harmon, Charles D" <cdharmo@sandia.gov>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: RE: HFBR
> Message-ID:
> <5E4AEFEB3A86D21193710008C7A40A5A04B37160@es05snlnt.sandia.gov>
>
> Just a few words to support Les. We have a small 2 MW pool reactor with a
> 9
> inch dry central cavity, as well as a fast burst reactor, at Sandia Labs .
> These are very unique neutron tools that continue to experience funding
> difficulties and may not be around a couple of years from now. The HPs
> that
> work at this facility have a unique opportunities that are rapidly
> dwindling.
>
> Charlie Harmon
> Sandia National Laboratories
> Albuquerque, NM
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lester Slaback [mailto:Lester.Slaback@NIST.GOV]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 9:50 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: HFBR
>
>
> Don't fool yourself - its always politics. DoE is debating spending a few
> million to restart the HFBR versus a good fraction of a billion dollars to
> restart the FFTF. They are vastly different facilities with different
> reasons for existence, and different political support (or lack thereof).
> But the HFBR represents a kind of facility needed by the materials
> research
> community. With the Congressional cancellation of the Advanced Neutron
> Source several years ago (a 200 MW reactor designed specifically for the
> future needs of the materials people) only the existing facilities
> represent the resource for the future. And other than the HIFR at Oak
> Ridge the HFBR is the highest powered research reactor in the U.S.
> available for this work, and is designed specifically for this purpose.
> The twenty-some experiments at the 20 MW NBSR (at NIST) are
> oversubscribed,
> with a long waiting list. The HIFR is adding a cold neutron facility but
> it will have only 2 or 3 beam lines (as compared to the 7 at NIST). When
> this country should be adding capability and resources we in fact are
> reducing it.
> Most HPs these days have had little contact with research reactors, and
> hence may not appreciate the role they play in the various and many
> industrial applications. Every university research reactor has programs
> with outside industrial vendors, in addition to their internal programs.
> And we are continuing to lose those facilities also (UVa, U of Ill, GaTech
> in recent years).
> So the HP community should be more than casually interested in the fate
> the
> HFBR. It is a significant chunk of our current resources.
> Disclaimer: the above are the personal musings of the author, and do not
> represent any past, present, or future position of NIST, the U.S.
> government,
> or anyone else who might think that they are in a position of authority.
> Lester Slaback, Jr. [Lester.Slaback@NIST.GOV]
> NBSR Health Physics
> Center for Neutron Research
> NIST
> 100 Bureau Dr. STOP 3543
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3543
> 301 975-5810 voice
> 301 921-9847 fax
> ************************************************************************
> 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: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:33:36 -0700
> From: "Michael C. Baker" <mcbaker@lanl.gov>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Radiation Exposures to Tokai Workers
> Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19991117092756.00af9c70@empo.lanl.gov>
>
>
> I am not at the meeting and I posted all the information I have so
> far. The ANS meeting was to include a special session on the accident,
> with presentations by several different representatives from Japan. I
> will
> see if I can get an answer for you but I don't know how often colleagues
> at
> the meeting are reading their email. I'll post any additional information
>
> I am able to get.
>
> Mike
>
>
> At 10:13 AM 11/17/99 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:01:07 -0500
> >From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
> >Subject: Re: Fwd: Radiation Exposures to Tokai Workers
> >
> >Mike,
> >
> >What was the basis for the estimates presented below? Is there data
> >to support the new projected figures, or, is it only based on what
> >one would assume the effects the workers display, to have been
> >derived from?
> >
> >Thanks ..
> >
> > > >For those of you not attending the ANS meeting in Long Beach, the
> best
> > > >estimate of radiation exposures for the three Japanese workers are as
>
> > follows:
> > > >
> > > >A: 910 rad (not 1700)
> > > >B: 500 rad (not 900)
> > > >C: 120 rad (not 300)
> > > >
> > > >These exposures make a lot more sense in terms of their current
> condition.
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:55:30 -0500
> From: Susan Gawarecki <loc@icx.net>
> To: RADSAFE <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Closing of Brookhaven Reactor
> Message-ID: <3832DE02.32CDB724@icx.net>
>
> New York Times
> November 17, 1999
> Closing of Brookhaven Reactor Dismays Scientists, Pleases
> Environmentalists
>
> GREAT NECK, N.Y.-Scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory were
> dismayed Tuesday at the Department of Energy's decision to permanently
> close an aging nuclear reactor that has been shut since 1996, but
> environmentalists praised the move.
>
> "There's a bunch of very unhappy people, a lot of very disappointed
> people," said Thomas R. Sheridan, deputy director for operations at
> Brookhaven. "We thought we had an understanding about what the process
> was going to be. We feel like we got the rug pulled out from under us."
>
> The announcement Tuesday by Energy Secretary Bill Richardson came as a
> surprise because discussions with the department had been going on for
> two years about the lab's High Flux Beam Reactor, Sheridan said. "The
> part where everybody got to comment was yet to come," he said, referring
> to an ongoing environmental impact study. The secretary, who had a
> preliminary draft of the report, said in October that he saw no major
> hurdles to its reopening, but he also requested further study.
>
> Environmentalists said they would like to see the results of the draft
> study. Ever since a tritium leak was discovered in 1997 and the reactor
> put on standby, the STAR Foundation, an anti-radiation group based in
> East Hampton, had been working to make sure the reactor would never be
> allowed to start back up.
>
> "We're delighted," said Scott Cullen, the organization's counsel. "I
> think it's a good decision for the environment on Long Island. It will
> allow the people at Brookhaven to now focus on the cleanup that is
> sorely needed."
>
> Geri Barish, president of 1 in 9: The Long Island Breast Cancer Action
> Coalition, agreed, but added that she was concerned the draft
> environmental study would not be released now that a decision had been
> made. "I hope they do release it," Ms. Barish said. "I think the public
> has a right to know. Too many secrets have been hidden from us already.
> I think it's time that they face up to what is going on and see what we
> can do about it."
>
> The scientists at the laboratory described the decision as an
> irreparable blow to research, describing it as the best reactor of its
> kind in the northern hemisphere. But Sheridan said he did not think the
> decision to permanently shut down the reactor would have much effect on
> the laboratory as a whole. The reactor represented about 5 percent of
> its $400 million total budget, he said.
>
> Brookhaven will need money to close the reactor. "This is a pretty
> substantial undertaking even though it's a pretty puny reactor," he
> said. "There will be a couple of years of planning of what we are going
> to do with it. Most important, where is that money going to come from?
> That's going to cost a lot more than starting it would have." Sheridan
> said it was unclear whether Brookhaven would dismantle the reactor or
> "just shut it down and stand guard in front of it for the next 30
> years."
>
> Bill Reeside, the reactor division manager, said more staff may be
> needed over the next two to three years for the cleanup. The division
> has 90 permanent employees and eventually jobs will be lost, he said.
>
> Funding for research of the type done at the reactor would continue, but
> not necessarily on Long Island, said Michael Holland, the director of
> the project management division for the Department of Energy. New
> instruments would continue to be developed and some work would be
> transferred to other national laboratories. The laboratory's mission
> would continue, Holland said. "It's a vibrant facility."
>
> Steve Shapiro, a scientist who had used the reactor for 30 years to
> study properties of various materials, was angry. "I can't tell you
> what discoveries won't be made," he said. "The amount of work has been
> reduced. There are just not enough facilities to support the demand for
> all of the users. Most of the scientists here have been using other
> facilities but producing less science. It is a national shame."
>
> --
> ==================================================
> Susan L. Gawarecki, Ph.D., Executive Director
> Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee, Inc.
> 136 S Illinois Ave, Ste 208, Oak Ridge, TN 37830
> Please note new area code:
> Phone (865) 483-1333; Fax (865) 482-6572; E-mail loc@icx.net
> OCTOBER INSIGHTS CAN BE FOUND AT: http://www.local-oversight.org
> ==================================================
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:58:50 -0800
> From: Robin_Siskel@notes.ymp.gov
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Surface finish for RP/ALARA purposes
> Message-ID: <8825682C.005D3FF9.00@ymln11.ymp.gov>
>
>
>
>
> Hello Radsafers!
>
> I'm hoping that some of you can point me in the right direction. I'm
> looking
> for documents or references that specify how surface finishes (roughness,
> porosity, etc.) should be determined during a design process. We are in
> the
> conceptual design stage, and the engineering folks have asked for
> references or
> citable information to specify what exterior surface finish will be
> acceptable
> in terms of radiological protection/contamination control/ALARA for large
> waste
> disposal casks that will be used for spent fuel and defense wastes. I can
> easily provide them with the base principals, but we need actual studies
> or
> publications that can be referenced. Thanks in advance for your thoughts
> on
> this issue.
>
> Robin Siskel
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:14:35 -0500
> From: "Heinmiller, Bruce" <heinmillerb@aecl.ca>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: RE: Fwd: Radiation Exposures to Tokai Workers
> Message-ID: <F1A83ECE5B26D3118A3800805FEAA76189D20A@crs19.crl.aecl.ca>
>
> Specification of the quantity being reported would be useful. This may
> also
> shed some light on why photon and neutron absorbed doses are not specified
> separately. For example, is it an estimate of the sum of the photon
> absorbed dose and the RBE-weighted neutron absorbed dose (which does not
> result in any quantity having units of sieverts, Jim) to some specified
> tissue?
>
> Bruce Heinmiller CHP
> heinmillerb@aecl.ca
>
> > ----------
> > From: Michael C. Baker[SMTP:mcbaker@lanl.gov]
> > Reply To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 11:36 AM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: Re: Fwd: Radiation Exposures to Tokai Workers
> >
> >
> > I am not at the meeting and I posted all the information I have so
> > far. The ANS meeting was to include a special session on the accident,
> > with presentations by several different representatives from Japan. I
> > will
> > see if I can get an answer for you but I don't know how often colleagues
> > at
> > the meeting are reading their email. I'll post any additional
> information
> >
> > I am able to get.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > At 10:13 AM 11/17/99 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> > >Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:01:07 -0500
> > >From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
> > >Subject: Re: Fwd: Radiation Exposures to Tokai Workers
> > >
> > >Mike,
> > >
> > >What was the basis for the estimates presented below? Is there data
> > >to support the new projected figures, or, is it only based on what
> > >one would assume the effects the workers display, to have been
> > >derived from?
> > >
> > >Thanks ..
> > >
> > > > >For those of you not attending the ANS meeting in Long Beach, the
> > best
> > > > >estimate of radiation exposures for the three Japanese workers are
> as
> >
> > > follows:
> > > > >
> > > > >A: 910 rad (not 1700)
> > > > >B: 500 rad (not 900)
> > > > >C: 120 rad (not 300)
> > > > >
> > > > >These exposures make a lot more sense in terms of their current
> > condition.
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > 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: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:52:51 -0800
> From: "Strom, Daniel J" <daniel.j.strom@pnl.gov>
> To: "'amanda.graham@sympatico.ca'" <amanda.graham@sympatico.ca>,
> Cc: "Stewart, Robert D" <trebor@pnl.gov>
> Subject: Epidemiology and Nuclear Power Plants
> Message-ID: <9E9DBE33F0E9D211AC5F0008C7A4E1F447A41F@PNLMSE10.pnl.gov>
>
> Amanda and RADSAFERs,
>
> There is little *quality* epidemiology regarding populations around
> nuclear
> power plants. One well-done study was published by Jablon et al. (1990),
> with
> follow-up articles in JAMA. They found essentially nothing, on the whole.
> The
> problem is that these studies are of the ecological design, making control
> for
> confounders impossible. For example, one of the plants with a
> standardized
> mortality ratio (SMR) greater than 1, namely Beaver Valley, is located in
> an
> area of heavy chemical industry, including a plant a few miles away that
> released, as I recall, 115,000 pounds of butadiene (an ACGIH Category A2
> carcinogen) to the atmosphere in 1990. Inference of causation, if any, is
> pretty tough in a situation like this where chemical exposures are not
> reported
> along with proximity to the nuclear power plant.
>
> Ecological studies assume that geographic proximity means higher dose, an
> assumption that may be true for some but not for others. Also, for
> nuclear
> power plants, they ignore the well-established latent period between
> exposure
> and disease for cancer.
>
> In my humble opinion, this stuff is virtually worthless, but it's the best
> we've
> got on this topic. This kind of research does not meet the criteria cited
> in
> the London Principles (Federal Focus 1996) for use of epidemiology studies
> in
> risk assessment (now posted at Rob Stewart's site,
> http://www.pnl.gov/berc/epub/risk/epidprin.html ).
>
> There are other studies by crackpot groups who draw their conclusions
> first and
> then try to find data to support them. This is particularly true for the
> cancer
> cluster phenomenon (see Gawande 1999 for an excellent debunking of the
> cancer-cluster phenomenon).
>
> References
>
> Federal Focus Inc. Principles for Evaluating Epidemiologic Data in
> Regulatory
> Risk Assessment. Developed by an Expert Panel at a Conference in London,
> England, October 1995. Washington, DC: Federal Focus, Inc.; 1996.
>
> Gawande,A. The Cancer-Cluster Myth. The New Yorker LXXIV(45):34-37;
> 1999.
>
> Jablon,S.; Hrubec,Z.; Boice,J.D., Jr.; Stone,B.J. Cancer in Populations
> Living
> Near Nuclear Facilities. NIH Pub. No. 90-874. Washington, DC: National
> Institutes of Health; 1990.
>
> Jablon,S.; Boice,J.D., Jr.; Hrubec,Z. Cancer in Populations Living Near
> Nuclear
> Facilities: A Survey of Mortality Nationwide and Incidence in Two States.
> Journal of the American Medical Association 265(11):1403-1408; 1991.
>
> Howe,G.R. Risk of Cancer Mortality in Populations Living Near Nuclear
> Facilities. Journal of the American Medical Association
> 265(11):1438-1439;
> 1991.
>
> - Dan Strom
>
> The opinions expressed above, if any, are mine alone and have not been
> reviewed
> or approved by Battelle, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, or the
> U.S.
> Department of Energy.
>
> Daniel J. Strom, Ph.D., CHP
> Risk Analysis & Health Protection Group, Environmental Technology
> Division,
> Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
> Mail Stop K3-56, PO BOX 999, Richland, Washington 99352-0999 USA
> Telephone (509) 375-2626 FAX (509) 375-2019 mailto:daniel.j.strom@pnl.gov
> Brief Resume: http://www.pnl.gov/bayesian/strom/strombio.htm
> Pagemaster for http://www.pnl.gov/bayesian http://qecc.pnl.gov
> http://bidug.pnl.gov
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:59:14 -0500
> From: "Riasp Medora"<Riasp.Medora@fernald.gov>
> To: <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Re[2]: Questions
> Message-ID: <9911179428.AA942861613@mailman.fernald.gov>
>
> Is anyone going to answer the lady's question?
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> Subject: RE: Questions
> Author: <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu> at FE-INTERNET
> Date: 11/17/1999 8:11 AM
>
>
> Carol,
>
> I beg to disagree with you, not in your assertion that cancer rates are
> depresse
> d in proximity to power plants, but that this is cause to drop the
> project. A st
> atement from the press, even from a student, that there is a lower risk of
> cance
> r in the vicinity of nuclear power plants than elsewhere, would be nice to
> hear.
>
> Rick Edwards, Analyst
> The Boeing Company
> richard.w.edwards@boeing.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: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:02:21 -0500
> From: "Russel O. Dunkelberger II" <rod1@psu.edu>
> To: <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Job Opening - Penn State University
> Message-ID: <000f01bf3125$e507ae20$4f5f7680@fsc.psu.edu>
>
> HEALTH PHYSICS SPECIALIST
> PENN STATE UNIVERSITY
>
> Environmental Health & Safety has an opening for a Health Physics
> Specialist who is responsible for conducting contamination surveys of
> radiation sources, nuclear reactor, laboratories that use radioactive
> material, radiation producing machines; the proper transportation and
> handling of radioactive waste material; and the proper use of radiation
> detection equipment. Must be able to determine compliance with federal,
> state, and University regulations and provide faculty with appropriate
> guidance to implement means for achieving full compliance. Requires a
> relevant Bachelor's degree or equivalent knowledge, plus three months to
> one year of work related experience. Computer experience required. A
> valid
> drivers license is also required. The successful candidate must acquire a
> Commercial Drivers License (Hazmat endorsement) within three months of
> beginning work.
>
> THIS IS A REANNOUNCEMENT - PREVIOUS APPLICANTS NEED NOT APPLY.
>
> Applications due by DECEMBER 1, 1999.
>
> Send letter of application, resume and salary requirements to: Employment
> Division, JOB #: L-5757, 120 S. Burrowes St., University Park, PA
> 16801-3857, or FAX to (814) 865-3750. AA/EOE
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:03:38 -0700
> From: "Potter, Charles" <capotte@sandia.gov>
> To: "Radsafe (E-mail)" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: High Flux Beam Reactor
> Message-ID:
> <890B12B8398AD211BC6100805FA784A20573CF78@es04snlnt.sandia.gov>
>
> Please excuse my ignorance. What are the capabilities of this reactor
> above
> and beyond other research reactors in the northern hemisphere?
>
> Gus
>
> Stay the patient course.
> Of little worth is your ire.
> The network is down.
> -- A computer error message in Haiku form
>
> C. A. Gus Potter
> Sandia National Laboratories
> Albuquerque, New Mexico
> (505) 844-2750
> capotte@sandia.gov
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:07:36 -0700
> From: "Potter, Charles" <capotte@sandia.gov>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: RE: Fwd: Radiation Exposures to Tokai Workers
> Message-ID:
> <890B12B8398AD211BC6100805FA784A20573CF79@es04snlnt.sandia.gov>
>
> If I remember correctly, the original numbers were expressed in rem, i.e.
> dose equivalent units. My understanding of acute radiation sickness is
> that
> it is defined in terms of absorbed dose units, being that the absorbed
> energy is actually what causes the effects rather than radiation
> "quality".
> The numbers below may just reflect the difference between the quality
> factor
> being included or not.
>
> Gus
>
> Stay the patient course.
> Of little worth is your ire.
> The network is down.
> -- A computer error message in Haiku form
>
> C. A. Gus Potter
> Sandia National Laboratories
> Albuquerque, New Mexico
> (505) 844-2750
> capotte@sandia.gov
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heinmiller, Bruce [mailto:heinmillerb@aecl.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 10:21 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: RE: Fwd: Radiation Exposures to Tokai Workers
>
>
> Specification of the quantity being reported would be useful. This may
> also
> shed some light on why photon and neutron absorbed doses are not specified
> separately. For example, is it an estimate of the sum of the photon
> absorbed dose and the RBE-weighted neutron absorbed dose (which does not
> result in any quantity having units of sieverts, Jim) to some specified
> tissue?
>
> Bruce Heinmiller CHP
> heinmillerb@aecl.ca
>
> > > > >A: 910 rad (not 1700)
> > > > >B: 500 rad (not 900)
> > > > >C: 120 rad (not 300)
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:07:40 -0500
> From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: Epidemiology and Nuclear Power Plants
> Message-ID: <199911171834.KAA07191@www.icnpharm.com>
>
> There is a project currently underway at a select group of nuclear
> power stations in the USA for the purpose of another in-depth
> epidemiological study.
>
> Perhaps someone from one of the selected plants, or study sponsor,
> could elaborate as to the scope of the study, what data is being
> collected, how is it being collected (criteria and parameters such as
> dose threshold, dates of exposure, etc.), how the data will be
> collated and analyzed and what will be done with the study
> conclusions (report, etc.), and to whom will this information be
> provided.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> Sander C. Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 /
> (800) 548-5100
> Director, Technical Extension 2306
>
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division Fax:(714) 668-3149
>
> ICN Biomedicals, Inc. E-Mail:
> sandyfl@earthlink.net
>
> ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
>
> Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>
> Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/scperle
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:27:37 -0500
> From: "Kahnhauser, Henry F" <kahnhaus@bnl.gov>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Job Posting - Dosimetry Position - Brookhaven National Laboratory
> Message-ID: <698DB793D712D31180B600902746422D0610F2@exchange01.bnl.gov>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> ---
> Brookhaven National Laboratory, Bldg. 185-HR, Upton, Long Island, NY
> 11973
> Attn: Nancy L. Sobrito, Job #NS 2583.
> Personnel Monitoring Supervisor - The Radiological Control Division at
> Brookhaven National Laboratory seeks a Personnel Monitoring Supervisor
> with
> experience in applied internal/external dosimetry, knowledge of the design
> and operation of dosimetry systems, supervisory experience and excellent
> communication skills. A bachelors degree in science or engineering,
> advanced degree preferred, and a minimum of five years' experience with
> occupational radiation dosimetry is required. Experience within a DOE
> complex and certification by the American Board of Health Physics is
> desirable. Brookhaven offers a stimulating work environment and a
> comprehensive benefits package. For consideration, please forward your
> resume to the above address (,referring to Job #NS 2583), or e-mail:
> Sobrito@bnl.gov
> ************************************************************************
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:43:52 -0500
> From: "Morgan, Ben" <ben.morgan@cplc.com>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: RE: D&D Code
> Message-ID: <D57693709D03D31197980001FA7E09D941DE49@nt000031>
>
> "I am attempting to locate a copy of the D&D Code, a risk assessment tool
> developed for the NRC."
>
> Response:
>
> Keith,
>
> I was able to download the code from:
>
> http://techconf.llnl.gov/radcri/dose-top.html
>
> [This was reached via a site identified in the Federal Register of
> 11/18/99
> on Page 64132]
>
> The program ran with no problems on my PC and, using the building
> occupancy
> model, I was able to duplicate the numbers listed in Table 1 on Page 64134
> of the 11/18/99 Federal Register.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ben
>
> ben.morgan@cplc.com
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:04:18 -0800
> From: Todd Maxwell <toddmax@scripps.edu>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: Questions
> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19991117110418.007c9bd0@scripps.edu>
>
> At 12:05 PM 11/17/99 -0600, you wrote:
> > Is anyone going to answer the lady's question?
> >
> And when you do I would suggest e-mailing her directly not just to the
> list. I sincerely doubt that she is a routine subscriber to this list
> server.
>
>
>
> With great power...
> +--------------------------------+
> | Todd Maxwell, RRPT |
> | Safety Specialist, EH&S |
> | The Scripps Research Institute |
> | 10550 North Torrey Pines Road |
> | mailcode BCC078 |
> | La Jolla, California 92037 |
> | |
> | toddmax@scripps.edu |
> +--------------------------------+
> ...comes great responsibility.
> -Stan Lee
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:03:11 -0800
> From: Stephen_C_Van_Slycke@RL.gov
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: RE: Questions
> Message-ID: <7910A7E76CA8D111BDC900A0C999614F0536D53C@APEXCH04.rl.gov>
>
> I would like to say that Ms. Graham only asked for some help. She came
> to the right place (or what should be), but instead this list has sent
> some very negative messages back. SHAME on US ! I wish that I could
> help her, but I would have to ask the same question or stumble along.
> Why, can we not help her ?
>
> Steve Van Slycke
> HPT
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Amanda Graham [SMTP:amanda.graham@sympatico.ca]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 8:47 PM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: Questions
> >
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> > --------------3DA315DDC6A75F2AD9F4945E
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > My name in Amanda Graham and I am a Journalism student researching
> > environmental links to breast cancer. I was wondering if anyone could
> > help me find information on cancer rates in North America in locations
> > around nuclear power plants and nuclear waste sites. Any information
> > would be very helpful.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Amanda
> >
> > amanda.graham@sympatico.ca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------3DA315DDC6A75F2AD9F4945E
> > Content-Type: message/rfc822
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Content-Disposition: inline
> >
> > Received: from smtp29.bellglobal.com by l.pop50.bellglobal.com
> > (PMDF V5.1-10 #26718) with ESMTP id
> > <0FLA00FB4QU0Z4@l.pop50.bellglobal.com>
> > for b1ofih15@pop50.bellglobal.com; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:25:12 -0500
> > (EST)
> > Received: from romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> > [128.174.74.24])
> > by smtp29.bellglobal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA12787 for
> > <amanda.graham@sympatico.ca>; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:19:32 -0500 (EST)
> > Received: (from server@localhost) by romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> > (8.9.3/8.9.3)
> > id JAA07787 for amanda.graham@sympatico.ca; Tue,
> > 16 Nov 1999 09:18:47 -0600 (CST)
> > Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:18:47 -0600 (CST)
> > From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> > Subject: Error Condition Re: Questions
> > Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> > To: amanda.graham@sympatico.ca
> > Errors-to: melissa@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> > Reply-to: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> > Message-id: <3831A172.7A08DA7C@sympatico.ca>
> > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en]C-SYMPA (Win95; I)
> > Precedence: bulk
> > Originator: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> > X-Comment: RADSAFE Mailing List www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> > X-Listprocessor-version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios
> > Kotsikonas
> >
> > amanda.graham@sympatico.ca: You are not subscribed to
> > radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu.
> > Your message is returned to you unprocessed. If you want to subscribe,
> > send mail to listserv@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu with the following request:
> >
> > subscribe RADSAFE Your Name
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------
> > Hello,
> >
> > My name in Amanda Graham and I am a Journalism student researching
> > environmental links to breast cancer. I was wondering if anyone could
> > help me find information on cancer rates in North America in locations
> > around nuclear power plants and nuclear waste sites. Any information
> > would be very helpful.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Amanda
> >
> > amanda.graham@sympatico.ca
> >
> >
> > **********************************************************************
> > **
> > The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> > information can be accessed at
> > http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> >
> > --------------3DA315DDC6A75F2AD9F4945E--
> >
> > **********************************************************************
> > **
> > 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: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:10:18 -0800
> From: Robin_Siskel@notes.ymp.gov
> To: amanda.graham@sympatico.ca, radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: Question on Environment Links to Cancer & Incidence Near
> Nuclear
> Message-ID: <8825682C.00694916.00@ymln11.ymp.gov>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello Amanda and all Radsafers:
>
> An extensive multi-million dollar study was conducted over a number of
> years
> regarding cancer incidence in people living near U.S. nuclear facilities.
> Results were released to the public in the early 1990's. There is some
> information about the study on the NIH website I've posted below. That
> webpage
> also provides links to related information.
>
> http://cancernet.nci.nih.gov/clinpdq/risk/No_Excess_Mortality_Risk_Found_i
> n_Counties_with_Nuclear_Facilities.html
>
> I've copied and printed the initial information from this page below, but
> more
> can be found if you go to the above link. I'm sure a copy of the entire
> summary
> document (several inches thick) could be obtained by contacting NIH. I
> suspect
> that the extensive studies of the area surrounding TMI could also provide
> interesting information for Amanda's study. Perhaps another Radsafer
> could
> point her to a contact for the TMI health studies that have been conducted
> over
> the years? I gather that they are also extensive though certainly not on
> the
> scope of the NIH study.
>
> My best to all of you,
>
> Robin Siskel
>
>
>
> No Excess Mortality Risk Found in Counties with Nuclear Facilities
>
> A National Cancer Institute (NCI) survey published in the Journal of the
> American Medical Association, March 20, 1991, showed no general increased
> risk
> of death from cancer for people living in 107 U.S. counties containing or
> closely adjacent to 62 nuclear facilities. The facilities in the survey
> had all
> begun operation before 1982. Included were 52 commercial nuclear power
> plants, 9
> Department of Energy research and weapons plants, and 1 commercial fuel
> reprocessing plant. The survey examined deaths from 16 types of cancer,
> including leukemia. In the counties with nuclear facilities, cancer death
> rates
> before and after the startup of the facilities were compared with cancer
> rates
> in 292 similar counties without nuclear facilities (control counties).
>
> The NCI survey showed that, in comparison with the control counties, some
> of the
> study counties had higher rates of certain cancers and some had lower
> rates,
> either before or after the facilities came into service. None of the
> differences
> that were observed could be linked with the presence of nuclear
> facilities.
> "From the data at hand, there was no convincing evidence of any increased
> risk
> of death from any of the cancers we surveyed due to living near nuclear
> facilities," said John Boice, Sc.D., who was chief of NCI's Radiation
> Epidemiology Branch at the time of the survey.
>
> He cautioned, however, that the counties may be too large to detect risks
> present only in limited areas around the plants. "No study can prove the
> absence
> of an effect," said Dr. Boice, "but if any excess cancer risk due to
> radiation
> pollution is present in counties with nuclear facilities, the risk is too
> small
> to be detected by the methods used."
>
> The survey, conducted by Seymour Jabon, Zdenek Hrubec, Sc.D., B.J. Stone,
> Ph.D.,
> and Dr. Boice, was begun in 1987 for scientific purposes in response to
> American
> public health concerns, and after a British survey of cancer mortality in
> areas
> around nuclear installations in the United Kingdom showed an excess of
> childhood
> leukemia deaths near some facilities ("Cancer Near Nuclear Installations,"
> David
> Forman, Paula Cook-Mozaffari, Sarah Darby, et al. Nature, October 8,
> 1987.). No
> increases in total cancer mortality were found in the British study, and
> other
> smaller surveys of cancer deaths around nuclear facilities in the United
> States
> and the United Kingdom have yielded conflicting results.
>
> The NCI scientists studied more than 900,000 cancer deaths in the study
> counties
> using county mortality records collected from 1950 to 1984. The
> researchers
> evaluated changes in mortality rates for 16 types of cancer in these
> counties
> from 1950 until each facility began operation and from the start of
> operation
> until 1984. For four facilities in two states (Iowa and Connecticut),
> cancer
> incidence data were also available. Data on cancer incidence in these
> counties
> resembled the county's mortality data patterns.
>
> For each of the 107 study counties, three counties that had populations
> similar
> in income, education, and other socioeconomic factors, but did not have or
> were
> not near nuclear facilities, were chosen for comparison. The study and
> control
> counties were within the same geographic region and usually within the
> same
> state. Over 1.8 million cancer deaths were studied in the control
> counties.
>
> The numbers of cancer deaths in the study counties and in the control
> counties
> were analyzed and compared to determine the relative risk (RR) of dying of
> cancer for persons living near a nuclear facility. A relative risk of 1.00
> means
> that the risk of dying of cancer was the same in the study and control
> counties;
> any number below 1.00 indicates that the overall risk was lower in the
> study
> county than in the control county; and any number greater than 1.00
> indicates a
> higher risk in the study county. For example, an RR of 1.04 would indicate
> that
> there was a 4-percent higher risk of cancer death in the study county.
> Conversely, an RR of 0.93 would indicate a 7-percent lower risk in the
> study
> county.
>
> For childhood leukemia in children from birth through age 9 years, the
> overall
> RR comparing study and control counties before the startup of the nuclear
> facilities was 1.08; after startup the RR was 1.03. These data indicate
> that the
> risk of childhood leukemia in the study counties was slightly greater
> before
> startup of the nuclear facilities than after. The risk of dying of
> childhood
> cancers other than leukemia increased slightly from an RR of 0.94 before
> the
> plants began operation to an RR of 0.99 after the plants began operating.
>
> For leukemia at all ages, the RRs were 1.02 before startup and 0.98 after
> startup. For other cancer at all ages, the RRs were essentially the same:
> 1.00
> before startup and 1.01 after startup. These results provide no evidence
> that
> the presence of nuclear facilities influenced cancer death rates in the
> study
> counties.
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:35:42 -0800
> From: "Edwards, Richard W" <Richard.Edwards@PSS.Boeing.com>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: RE: Questions
> Message-ID:
> <211E73E5CB35D111A82B00805F1919F0036D2F62@xch-sea-13.ca.boeing.com>
>
> FYI - I know of at least one person, not myself, who has taken the time to
> respond to Ms. Graham's request. My thanks to that individual and anyone
> else who has done so.
>
> Rick Edwards, Analyst
> The Boeing Company
> richard.w.edwards@boeing.com
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:59:32 -0600
> From: Kjell Johansen <kjell.johansen@wepco.com>
> To: "radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: student request
> Message-ID: <38330924.9C5C6DB@wepco.com>
>
> I just read my RADSAFE update and have to agree with the replys to Carol
> Marcus concerning the journalism student's question. What an
> opportunity for those of us in the field to provide some working
> knowledge of health physics to an aspiring journalist who may not have
> any scientific literacy. We should point out that a correlation does
> not mean a cause and effect relationship. We should recomment NCRP
> Reports 93-95 about exposures to man-made and the variations in natural
> radiation. (By the way Carol, typical doses around a nuclear plant are
> much less than 1 mrem, 25 mrem is the 40CFR190 fuel cycle limit. Even
> the EPA got this one correct on their education page for calculating
> your personal exposure - the dose fro living within x miles of a
> coal-fired plant was higher than for a nuclear plant.) We should inform
> her of the ethics of our profession and how we value the health and
> safety of the public. [Just because we are experts in the field of
> radiation protection and work for does not mean that we in league with
> the devil (or the nuclear establishment - whatever that may be, etc., as
> opined by the anti-nuclear folks) to foul up this earth with
> radiation.] There was an excellent article about the occurrence of
> clusters by Joel Cehn in the IAEA Bulletin several years ago which would
> do much to explain their occurrence to the lay person. There is so much
> we can do to educate. Let's take this opportunity. Let's not get
> paranoid everytime someone asks a question about a the relationship
> between cancer and nuclear plants.
>
> So, Amanda, if you happen to be reading this, just as my job is to
> protect the public, the environment, and those people in my company who
> work with radioactive materials, your job as a journalist, in addition
> to selling newspapers, will be to present an ACCURATE and TRUTHFUL
> story. Get to know your sources and get to know the arguments and FACTS
> on each side of the argument. Remember Chicken Little. A little
> knowledge is a dangerous thing and irresponsibly used can cause a lot of
> damage. Keep in mind a line spoken by Thomas Moore in A Man for All
> Seasons as he finds out a "friend" lied about him to gain wealth and
> position "All of this, for Wales?" No slander against the Welsh intended
> on my part, just quoting in the historical context of the play.
>
> Just my own thoughts.
>
> Kjell A. Johansen, Ph.D.
> Wisconsin Electric Power Company
> Milwaukee
> kjell.johansen@wepco.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 2775
> **************************
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html