INTERNATIONAL ACCELERATOR RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION E-MAIL (IARPE) NEWSLETTER "The Official Publication of the Accelerator Section of the Health Physics Society" (with Contributions from International Correspondents) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May/June 1998 Circulation: 203 Vol.7, #3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OFFICERS President: Vashek Vylet, SLAC President-Elect: Steve Musolino, BNL Past President: Lutz Moritz, TRIUMF Secretary: Scott Walker, LANL Treasurer: Gerry Fallon, MIT Newsletter Editor:Scott Schwahn, Jefferson Lab Directors: Jeff Leavey, IBM (1998) Tracy Tipping, KSU (1998) Wes M. Dunn, International Isotopes (1999) Henry Kahnhauser, BNL (1999) Bob May, Jefferson Lab (2000) Keith Welch, Jefferson Lab (2000) CONTENTS From the Editor From the President News from correspondents: AGS CERN Jefferson Lab Other News: Tribute to Wade Patterson How to subscribe or update subscription Closing thought ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From the Editor Scott Schwahn ------------------------------------------------------------------------ My apologies for the tardiness of this newsletter. Things have been hectic around here, and I wanted to get the last possible submission - a tribute to Wade Patterson by Ralph Thomas. I know you will find it worth the wait. If you are reading this via e-mail, I highly encourage you to look at the HTML version to get the links to the PDF and PS file formats, which are complete with pictures. I would like to thank Associate Editors Ted deCastro and Kristin Erickson, who helped me throughout my tenure as your Editor. I would also like to disclaim their help on this last issue, as it was so late I decided not to ask for their input. All errors are mine alone. (Or as a friend of mine says, "All errors, typos, etc., in this newsletter are placed on purpose to give those who have too much time on their hands something to do.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Words from the President Vashek Vylet ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear colleagues, We just went through an interesting experience, the first elections conducted by correspondence, in accordance with our new Bylaws. This way of conducting elections was set up with the hope that it would dramatically increase member participation. The final statistics are anything but dramatic: barely 25% members cast their votes (see the report of the Nominating/Election Committee below). There are lessons to be learned from this experience, and I believe that the next year will be better. Some of you mentioned that you did not know all the candidates. Perhaps there should be a short info page about each candidate in the spring issue of IARPE next year. Below is a copy of the Annual Report of the Accelerator Section to the HPS Board. This report also marks my last contribution to IARPE as section president. I would like to thank section officers, board and committee members, and all those who actively participated is section business for their hard work. Good luck to the relay team in July! Vashek Vylet ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ACCELERATOR SECTION ANNUAL REPORT (1997/1998) Author: Vashek Vylet, Section President Date: June 24, 1998 Officers of the Accelerator Section: President: Vashek Vylet President-Elect: Steve Musolino Past President: Lutz Moritz Secretary: Scott Walker Treasurer: Gerry Fallon Newsletter Editor: Scott Schwahn Directors: Jeff Leavey, Tracy Tipping, Wes Dunn, Henry Kahnhauser, Bob May, Keith Welch Accelerator Section committees and appointments: Rules Committee: Steve Musolino and Carter Ficklen Contact with Program Committee: Steve Musolino Summer School Committee: Bob May and Paula Trinoskey Contact for International Summer School (Erice): Lutz Moritz Scientific Committee: Ken Kase and Don Cossairt Nominating and Election Committee: Ralph Thomas, Bob May, Lutz Moritz CASOG Committee: Steve Musolino, Sayed Rokni, Geoff Stapleton, Marcia Torres, Olin van Dyck, Kamran Vaziri The purpose of this report is to describe activities of the Accelerator Section since the last Annual HPS Meeting. It therefore contains elements from the last midyear report as well as recent updates. The salient activities are listed below, together with requests for action by the HPS Board. Elections In an attempt to increase member participation in the election of Section officers, the Section submitted an amendment to its Bylaws, which would permit to cast votes by mail or e-mail. According to oral information from the HPS Executive Secretary to the Section President, this amendment was approved by HPS Board of Directors during their meeting in Mobile. Expecting an official notification of this fact, this year's nomination and election process was conducted according to the amended Bylaws. The Section Board of Directors deliberated and took decisions on certain issues. For example, in order to avoid potential problems, it was decided that no elections will be conducted at the Annual Meeting, i.e. all votes will be cast "remotely". Since this is an important change in the way of conducting Section business, a draft of a report by the Section Election Committee is enclosed as an appendix. Numbers related to participation are not known at this point, since the election process is not yet completed. Request for action: Send official notification regarding Bylaws amendment. Contribution to the Moyer Fund The Accelerator Section received $2000 for organizing the technical program of the '97 midyear meeting in San Jose. The Section agreed to give 50% of its proceeds to the Moyer Fund. Request for action: The Accelerator Section hereby requests that $1000 from its account be transferred to the Moyer Fund. CASOG (Committee on the Accelerator Safety Order and Guidance) The work of this committee, set up in 1994, reflects a major effort by the Section to become an active player in the regulatory process. This work will result in the publication of a paper (submitted earlier this year to Health Physics) that documents Section's position on methods for establishing safety standards at accelerator facilities. The proposed concept provides a rational way of establishing reliability levels of safety systems needed to control risk of radiation exposure. It is hoped that the approach outlined in this paper will be implemented in future regulation pertaining to accelerator facilities. Summer School The section would like to contribute to the Summer School program by organizing a course on Accelerator Health Physics. The Section contacted Jack Higgenbotham, Chair of the Summer School. The Section was originally willing to this course during the 1999 HPS Annual Meeting, but this subject was deemed too close to the very similar topic of the '97 Midyear Meeting in San Jose. The Section Summer School Committee will remain on standby, ready to step in for the 2001 or later Annual Meeting. International School Efforts are in progress to revive the "International School of Radiation Damage and Protection", organized since the late seventies at the Ettore Majorana Center for Scientific Culture in Erice, Sicily. The Accelerator Section is proposing to organize the program and find teachers for the selected courses. Our target is to have the first two-week course in November 2000, possibly followed by similar courses every two or three years. We were able to secure the support of the European Community for the first course in the amount of 20,000 ECU (approximately $30,000) and started negotiations with the Ettore Majorana Center. Electronic Newsletter The section continues to publish its electronic newsletter IARPE (International Accelerator Radiological Protection E-mail), which is distributed via listserv to approximately 200 readers worldwide. It is also available on the World Wide Web (current link: . High Energy Neutron Calibration Facility Unites States lags behind Europe and Japan it that it has no facility providing well calibrated beams of mono-energetic neutrons, and high energy neutrons (above 20 MeV) in particular. That means that accelerator health physicist have very little means of calibrating their neutron instruments in the high-energy area. The Accelerator Section is exploring different possibilities and will continue lobbying for and encourage any effort to establish such a facility in the US. Financial Report (As communicated by the HPS Secretariat) Statement of Income & Expenses and Account Balance For the 8 month period ending April 30, 1998 ACCOUNT BALANCE 8/31/97 5789.61 INCOME RECEIVED Dues from HPS Members 570.00 Contibutions 0.00 TOTAL INCOME COLLECTED 570.00 EXPENSES PAID Collection & Management 57.00 Annual Meeting Expenses 0.00 TOTAL EXPENSES PAID 57.00 ACCOUNT BALANCE 4/30/98 6,302.61 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE Accelerator Section, Health Physics Society Introduction It is the expressed wish its membership that the Accelerator Section organizes its elections to facilitate the participation of all members in good standing. In the past it was important to attend the Section's Annual Business Meeting held during the Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society to participate. Not all members are able to attend this meeting and a means of enfranchising these members is needed. Accordingly, early in February 1998, President, Vashek Vylet, acting with the approval of the Board, approached Ralph Thomas requesting him to form and chair a Nominating Committee consisting of three persons. The charge to the Committee was to: - Organize the election of officers in 1998 with this goal in mind - Run the elections, review and tally the ballots - Keep appropriate records so the Section Board could to validate the election process and results - Prepare a report of election activities for the information of the Section members and its Boards Nominations Committee Chairman Thomas approached the two most immediate Past President's requesting them that they join in this service. Both agreed without hesitation and thus the Nominations Committee consisted of: Robert May (Past President) Lutz Moritz (Past President) Ralph H. Thomas (Chair and Past President) Call for Nominations On 5 March 1998 the Nominating Committee sent out a call for nominations to all Section members, with information of vacancies and explaining how to submit nominations. Nominations were to be submitted by 20 March 1998 (Appendix 1). A second call for nominations was sent out by the Chair, Nominations Committee on 20 March 1998, with the deadline for submissions extended to 31 March 1998 (Appendix 2). Slate of Candidates, Nominations were received from six section members. All nominations were validated by the Nominating Committee. The final slate of candidates which was was closed on 2 April 1998 was: President Elect: Joe McDonald, PNL Secretary: Scott Schwahn, JLAB Newsletter Editor: Elaine Marshall, FNAL Kristin Erickson, Mich. State University Board Member: Mike Grissom, SLAC Ed Lessard, BNL Sayed Rokni, SLAC Marcia Torres , ANL Balloting A ballot form and explanatory letter was sent out to all Section members by the Nominating Committee on 25 May. The deadline for ballots to be received was 20 June 1998 (Appendices 3 & 4). All members on line were contacted by E-mail and the remainder by mail. Two reminders to vote were sent on 4 and 11 June. Vote Collecting and Tabulation All ballots received by the chairman and were acknowledged. Members of the Nominations Committee were kept regularly informed of the tabulations of ballot by your Chairman. Two electronic files and hard copies of all ballots were maintained. Election Results Members Voting 33 Members Voting by mail: 5 Members Voting by E-mail 28 Section Members 136 2 members abstained on some office elections 2 members wrote in candidates The names of the persons voting were transmitted to the Secretary of the Section, Scott Walker, for validation that they were members of the Section in June 1998. The results of the election will be announced at the Business meeting of the Section on 14 July. Respectfully submitted: Robert May (Past President) Lutz Moritz (Past President) Ralph H. Thomas (Chair and Past President) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alternating Gradient Synchrotron News from AGS Chuck Schaefer ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The AGS continued to run well in May for a series of small NASA experiments. The NASA team is composed of biologists and physicists who are studying two phenomena: one is the effect on mice and rats from doses in the range of 0.5 Gy to 5 Gy delivered by a relatively low intensity Fe-55 beam. The other effect is the composition of the fragmentation spectrum produced when iron nuclei interact with various shielding materials. This research is in support of the NASA space flight program. The low intensity-low energy (800 - 1000 MeV/nucleon) iron beam is challenging for the beam physicists to produce. Normal heavy ion physics experiments make full use of the AGS's accelerating capability which is about 11 GeV/nucleon for gold nuclei. This running period was followed by a brief three-week shutdown. One of the major jobs during this shutdown was the cement capping of several beam dump locations. These included the Brookhaven Linac Isotope Production (BLIP) facility, the g-2 beam dump, and the location of the still unfinished J-10 beam scraper in the main AGS ring. Gunnite, a cement mixture, was used in these locations. The desired effect is to prevent rain water from penetrating the ground near major beam loss points, and thus, to prevent the production of tritium in groundwater. Recent groundwater samples taken near the BLIP facility have shown elevated levels of tritium which are believed to have resulted from past operating practices. Because of the recent public outrage over the small amounts of tritium which have leaked out of the High Flux Beam Reactor's (HFBR) spent fuel pool, BNL management decided to adopt this conservative approach towards potential groundwater contamination from on-site operations. Each gunnite capping costs about $50,000. Additional groundwater samples will be taken adjacent to the booster beam dump, and at various other points around the AGS facility. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ News from CERN Manfred Hoefert ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thanks to all of you who responded to my plea for a "special treatment" of radioactive material from accelerators. The fact that you have not heard from me does not mean the topic is forgotten, on the contrary it shall be of utmost importance in the coming years at CERN particularly with the decommissioning of LEP. The magic word in all of this if of course "recycling", provided clearance levels for slightly radioactive materials not only exist but can even be used. It has become customary although (it is not at all logic) to distinguish between exemption limits below which slightly radioactive material can be kept and handled without authorization and clearance levels (usually lower than exemption levels) below which material can be thrown away or recycled as non-active (see also Marco's contribution below). As you probably know by now: France does not have any clearance levels for radioactivity. This fact means that in principle all machine elements in the LEP collider are considered to be active and must be treated as very weak radioactive material (TFA = tres faiblement radioactif) in the dismantling phase of this machine. Luckily enough our French colleagues from Saclay found help in a document from the CEA (Commission de l'Energie Atomique) when they wanted to decommission an experimental area of the long shut-down Saclay Linear Accelerator. Here is what they did and what we probably will copy: First you must divide the area you would like to decommission into three distinct zones (zonage): The first one is where you can show beyond any doubt that it contains no radioactivity like e.g. a generator building in your accelerator complex. The second zone comprises all areas where you are sure that radioactivity was induced and where specific activities are definitively above 1 Bq/g for the usual beta/gamma emitters found around accelerators. The material in these areas is definitely TFA (below 100 Bq/g) and possibly sometimes even FA. The third zone is the most interesting one because you cannot exclude some beam interaction but you know that activity levels are well below 1 Bq/g. What do you do? Showing by measurements that your assumption is true is not sufficient. The French approach requires that you prove the "non radioactivity" by "reasoning". This means that you collect all information on beam energies, intensities and possible loss pattern in your accelerator or beam lines and make the appropriate calculations of the possible radionuclides that could have been created with a correction for their half-lives. If the results of your reasoning turn out as they should to be well below the "exemption limits" in the European Directive of 1996 you only add to your official decommissioning report for the French authorities a few measurements where the results in term of specific activity should be even lower than your pessimistic reasoned estimations. Under these conditions the material in question is considered to be inactive with no restriction on its further use. As the time for approval of the report is known to be rather long, my group has started with some Monte Carlo calculations to predict the induced radioactivity in the LEP beam dumps for which the number of electrons or positrons dumped and their energies are well known. With the help of the machine people, we will then develop some other typical beam loss scenarios and also get the total number of leptons used in LEP since the start-up of the machine. The result of all this: I am convinced that we can by using the French approach "reason" that 95 % of the LEP machine is non radioactive. Finally, is it more tedious to write an elaborate report for the authorities with a few spot checks like measurements of induced radioactivity or is it preferred to make many individual measurements that are not trivial (let us say determine 0.01 Bq/g with 30% precision)? As an additional benefit the French authorities claim that their method of dealing with TFA-material for each decommissioning case individually is more acceptable to the public than simply applying universal clearance levels for radioactivity. Let us hope that this is true and we can decommission LEP without any disturbance. Marco Silari wrote: The existing CERN accelerator complex currently injecting electrons and positrons into the Large Electron Positron collider (LEP) will be used for injecting protons into the future Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Two new transfer lines will be built for transporting 450 GeV protons from the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) to the LHC, in both the clockwise and anti-clockwise direction. The first (TI2) will connect the target station TCC6 of the SPS with point 2 of the present LEP tunnel; the second (TI8) will link straight-section 4 (LSS4) of the SPS with LEP point 8. Before starting the excavation work, the level of the induced activity in the walls of the SPS tunnel in the two areas involved had to be determined, to decide what part of the initial layers of the concrete and rock will have to be treated as radioactive waste. The TCC6 area was subjected to activation since the beginning of the SPS experimental program. This area houses targets and collimators and is situated near the beam extraction elements towards the neutrino facility. LSS4 housed the internal beam dumps of the SPS until 1980, when the accelerator was modified for p-pbar operation and the most active elements were removed. This area was submitted to important excavation work for the construction of the experimental area ECX4; the present walls date to that period and are therefore comparatively "young". Since then LSS4 is a straight section with very low proton beam losses. Core borings of concrete and the underlying rock were taken from both areas and analyzed by gamma-spectrometry. A non-irradiated rock sample, taken in the French region nearby, was also measured and used as reference. One of the core borings from TCC6 showed little induced activity only in the first 60 cm from the surface, whilst for another (taken in front of a collimator) it was concluded that the whole concrete part is activated. Nothing above background was detected in the rock. A decrease in the specific activity in concrete can be clearly seen with increasing distance from the surface for both samples. A fit results in an apparent attenuation length of 60 g/cm2 and 95 g/cm2, respectively, which corresponds to the value for the forward cascade produced by 100 MeV and 150 MeV protons on an iron target. Overall, the measurements showed that the levels of induced specific activity in the two areas of the SPS complex are generally very low when compared with the natural background in the region. For LSS4 the measured values are also very low when compared with the Swiss exemption limits, those proposed by the EU and the clearance levels of the IAEA. On the other hand, some of the samples taken in TCC6 present an induced specific activity that exceeds some of these limits in the case of 22Na, 54Mn, 60Co and 152Eu. These results suggest that there will be neither any radiological hazard during the excavation of the LHC injection tunnels nor in the disposal of the concrete and rock removed. However, the rock and the concrete from the break-through between TI2 and TCC6 will be considered as radioactive and treated accordingly. Therefore all work in this zone will require that people are classified as persons exposed in the exercise of their profession wearing film badges (and other personal dosimeters if considered necessary) as well as protective clothing. Further reading: M. Silari and L. Ulrici, Induced activity in the tunnel walls of the CERN Super Proton Synchrotron, CERN Divisional Report, CERN/TIS-RP/98-05 (1998). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ News from Jefferson Lab Scott Schwahn ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sorry this contribution has little to do with radiation safety. Things are just too busy to contribute at the moment. I am sure my next contribution will explain why. Still, this is very exciting stuff! On June 17, Jefferson Lab's infrared free-electron laser (FEL) produced 155 W of continuous-wave (cw) power at 4.9 micron wavelength. No previous FEL had exceeded 11 W. The device is the first in a series of high-average-power, wavelength-tunable FELs being developed at Jefferson Lab for basic science, for industrial applications, and for applied defense research. The present IR laser is planned to reach 1 kW. Envisioned upgrades would lead ultimately to an FEL reaching 20 kW in the infrared and 1 kW in the deep ultraviolet down to 0.2 microns. FEL development is a spinoff from the lab's main mission of basic studies of the quark structure of nuclei. The superconducting radio-frequency (SRF) electron accelerator that drives the FEL derives from the technology of Jefferson Lab's 4 GeV, 200 microampere, cw main machine. The FEL accelerator is designed for 5 milliampere average current. The FEL is laid out in a racetrack configuration to utilize energy recovery of the spent electron beam. The electrons are produced in a 350 kV DC photocathode gun and accelerated to 10 MeV in an SRF accelerating unit of 1 m active length -- a pair of five-cell SRF cavities like those in the main machine. The electrons are then accelerated to 57 MeV in a four-cavity-pair SRF cryomodule. After the FEL, the beam can be recirculated for energy recovery and dumped at the injection energy of 10 MeV. The recirculation loop is based on the isochronous achromat used in the MIT Bates accelerator but designed with an energy acceptance of 6%. With energy recirculation, estimated power output at 3 microns is 980 W with a small signal gain of 46%. Design values for the electron beam parameters of the kW-level IR FEL are: Kinetic energy 42 MeV (nominal) Average current 5 mA Repetition rate 37.425 MHz Charge per bunch 135 pC Normalized transverse emittance 13 mm-mrad Longitudinal emittance 50 keV-degrees Beta function at wiggler center 50 cm Energy spread (sigma_gamma/gamma) 0.20% Peak current 50 A Bunch length (rms) 1 psec Design values for the wiggler parameters of the kW-level IR FEL are: Wavelength range 3.0 to 6.6 microns Period 2.7 cm Number of periods 40 rms K^2 0.5 (option: 1.0) Phase noise <5 degrees rms Trajectory wander x < +/- 100 microns y < +/- 500 microradians To minimize emittance-growth effects and to speed the commissioning process, the FEL wiggler and optical cavity at the moment are placed at the exit of the accelerator. Commissioning of the recirculation loop is planned for this summer, as is the start of user experiments. Envisioned applications include: * Basic science: materials science and molecular and optical physics. * Polymer surface processing: amorphization to enhance adhesion, fabric surface texturing, enhanced food packaging, and induced surface conductivity. * Micromachining: ultrahigh-density CD-ROM technology, surface texturing, micro-optical components, and Micro-Electrical Mechanical Systems (MEMS). * Metal surface processing: laser glazing for corrosion resistance and adhesion pre-treatments. * Electronic materials processing: large-area processing (flat-panel displays) and a laser-based "cluster tool" for combined deposition, etching, and in situ diagnostics. The industrial applications exploit the potential of SRF-driven FELs to overcome conventional lasers' cost, capacity, wavelength, and pulse-length constraints. Of additional interest for basic science is the potential for short pulses of x-rays from the IR FEL, which arise from Thomson scattering of the recirculating optical pulse against the drive electron beam. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tribute to Wade Patterson Ralph H. Thomas [extracted from ]<806KB) [also found as Postscript file](2.5MB) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henry Wade Patterson 1924 - 1997 The Man and his Contribution to Radiological Protection - a Tribute Ralph H. Thomas University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory His life was gentle, and the elements So mix'd in him that Nature might stand up And say to all the world, "This was a man!" Julius Caesar Act V William Shakespeare (1599) INTRODUCTION. Henry Wade Patterson died in Lakeview, Oregon, on 7 October 1997. With his passing, we lost not only one of the most significant figures of the health physics profession but a most personable colleague and friend. His career at the University of California, both at Berkeley and Livermore, spanned five decades and he was generally regarded to be the first professional accelerator health physicist. So significant was our loss that more than a dozen local, national, and international newspapers, magazines, and scientific journals carried obituaries. On 18 April 1998, the Northern California and Sierra-Nevada Chapters of the Health Physics Society paid tribute to Wade at the J. Newell Stannard Lecutres held in Incline Village, Nevada. Wade was active in both chapters. At that meeting, Wade's name was joined with another of the great personalities of public health---Merril Eisenbud who also died last year. Although it might be said that Merril Eisenbud and Wade represent opposite extremes of the spectrum of the great members of our profession---one a learned scholar from academia, and the other a self-trained operational health physicist---it was nevertheless fitting that their names were joined in this way because their paths intersected several times throughout their professional careers, and both held a high regard one for the other. Both were interested in high natural radiation areas around the world; the energy spectrum of neutrons emerging from the shield of high-energy accelerators; and the limitations in the power of epidemiological studies in understanding the health effects of humans exposed to ionizing radiations. It has been nine months since Wade died. And it is particularly fitting that we of the Accelerator Section of the Health Physics Society, of which Wade was both a co-founder and first President, pay tribute to his memory and career. In paying this tribute, I cannot be entirely objective and must declare a special interest. In this matter I cannot be neutral, for Wade was a most dear friend. Many years ago at dinner, perhaps after a few glasses of wine, Wade told Mavis, my wife, that he regarded me as a younger brother rather than as a coworker. That is a compliment that I have held close to my heart ever since. WADE AS A YOUNG MAN. Wade, named after a favorite uncle and as he preferred to be known, was born to a military family on 28 July 1924, in Bishop, California. During his formative years, he traveled widely around the United States with his family as his father's postings demanded. During one of these tours of duty, Wade lived in Sitka, Alaska, where he earned a little pocket money as a tour-guide. One of his ``customers'' was the well-known Ripley of the internationally known news column ``Believe it or Not!'' As a teenager, Wade moved to Lakeview, Oregon, where his father, a civil engineer, was assigned to assist in the construction of the post office. There, he attended high school, established his love for the Oregon high desert, and met Lois, his first wife. Wade served with the U.S. Army Air Corps in Europe during the Second World War flying missions over Germany from Northern Italy. Many years later, it was often an item of speculation at dinner-table conversations as to whether Wade had bombed the young girl Alvina (``Bizzi'') who at that time was growing up in Munich and who was to later became his second wife. Wade and I discussed the bombings during this time. Both my wife, Mavis, and I had experienced the air raids from the other end---in London and Portsmouth. I had also seen first hand the devastation of the allied bombings of Hamburg and Cologne. When I offered the opinion that the accuracy of the bombing was poor, Wade was miffed with me. I quickly retreated and assured Wade that I was sure he was a most precise bomb-aimer. In telling this story to Wade's family last year, I learned that Wade had once related an amusing anecdote. It seems that during his training somewhere in the mid-West things had not gone according to Hoyle. During target practice, Wade had released a bomb and was following its passage down towards the target. As he leaned increasingly forward to watch the bomb's descent as the plane flew on, he inadvertently brushed the bomb release-mechanism and another bomb---this time errant--- sped its way earthward. How I wish I had known this earlier! I might have won a drink out of Wade on a bet! WADE PATTERSON---UNIVERSITY MAN. Wade's professional career spanned five decades and was entirely spent at the University of California, Berkeley. He was a labourer and part-time employee at Lawrence's Radiation Laboratory and an undergraduate at Berkeley, where he majored in anthropology. Upon graduation, he served on the staff of the Radiation Laboratory, then in senior management positions at both Berkeley and Livermore National Laboratories. Wade's interest in anthropology surely was a felicitous choice for a nascent health physicist who was to be entrusted in determining the effects of ionizing radiation to Man (``The proper study of mankind is man,'' Alexander Pope, Essay on Man). In his memoirs, he tells how his imagination was particularly stirred by the lectures of Professor Ronald Olson which ``gave Inca and Mayan civilization a startling reality'' (Patterson 1995). He loved the Berkeley campus, with its oases of quiet beauty in the midst of a roaring city. Even today, despite the encroachments of ever more development, one can still find idyllic spots free of noise and people where one can refresh the soul by quiet meditation (and one should note, because it is Berkeley, without benefit of marijuana). Wade admired all that the University could bring to life: its scholarship and intellectual vigour, its melting pot of cultures, its music, its political discourse and social activism. He welcomed controversy and strongly believed that of all places the University was the place where such issues could be examined rationally with intelligence, calm, and the benefit of obtaining significant information. In his memoirs, he reflected sadly and somewhat wistfully on the decline of courtesy in the manner in which controversial debates are now conducted. He compared the polite hearing given to Paul Robeson in the early 1950s with the manner in which William Shockley was shouted down, two decades later, and not allowed to enunciate his ideas because they were viewed as controversial. ``In Berkeley now,'' he writes, ``those who express views that are different from a certain perceived correct position are rejected immediately, vociferously, decisively, and even physically. No activity, . . . is found acceptable if in any way it is seen to be connected with nuclear energy or weapons.'' Not least, Wade loved the University's athletic competition with its concept of the ``student-athlete'' as yet untainted by ``professionalism.'' Several times we went together to witness that great Bay Area tradition, the autumnal slaughter in celebration of the vigour of youth known as the ``Big Game'' between Cal and that other great University (Stanford) just across the bay from Berkeley. WADE PATTERSON AND BURTON MOYER. No one had a greater influence on Wade's professional life than did Burton Moyer as supervisor, mentor, role model, and friend. To understand Wade, one must know a little about Burton Moyer. Professor Moyer was a most distinguished physicist held in high esteem by many eminent scientists. Pief Panofsky regarded him very highly, both as a man and as a physicist and has written of him: "After the war, responsible radiological protection was greatly promoted through the efforts of Burton J. Moyer, who managed to be a highly productive experimental particle physicist, while taking responsibility for radiological protection (Panofsky 1994)." Segre`, who was known to be a stern critic, in describing Moyer's career and his decision to take up health physics wrote: ". . . Then papers on Health Physics appeared. Why? To serve his fellow physicists Burt assumed a new, heavy load; the organization and supervision of health physics for the Radiation Laboratory. This work was technically difficult because the radiations were in a new energy region and their measurement and evaluation presented new problems. The work was of vital importance for the safety of his colleagues in the Laboratory. It was a job not coveted by anyone, but as long as Burt was in Berkeley he silently, efficiently, and proficiently carried it on (Segre` 1973). " It was the character, however, of Moyer the Man that most influenced Wade. Moyer was an elder in the Presbyterian Church. Emilio Segre`, who was not a believer and a shrewd and tough judge of human nature, writes: ". . . I have met truly religious people, in whom religion inspired the noblest conduct. Two such saintly men come to my mind. One was a Catholic priest, Don Nello del Raso, . . . the other was Professor Burton J. Moyer (1912-- 1973), who was for a time my colleague. As a young man, he had wanted to be a Protestant missionary and trained for that calling, but the war made him into a superior physicist. He worked at the Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, and in due course played a major part in the discovery of the neutral pion. However, his real desire was to help his fellow men. Moyer became head of the physics department at Berkeley at the time of the worst student unrest, and he was one of a handful of people who managed to gain the confidence of both the administration and of the rebellious students. When things quieted down, he went to India to help in the setting up of a technical institute there .# .# . I felt deeply attracted to him in spite of our greatly different backgrounds (Segre`, 1993). " To his students and protégés Moyer became ``The Father of Accelerator Health Physics,'' a term that I think is now universally accepted. He made many seminal decisions that were to shape the work of accelerator health physicists around the world. Most importantly, Moyer emphasized that the physical characterization of the accelerator radiation environment---in terms of the type of radiations and their angular and energy distribution---was to be preferred in radiation protection at particle accelerators in that it provided an unchanging basis which could be used to interpret the subsequently improving, and thus ever-changing, biological information (Moyer 1952, 1954). He is today often remembered for the ``Moyer Model.'' First used to design the shielding for the improved Bevatron, the model has been ``fine-tuned'' in some respects and has served in the design of many, many accelerator shields (Moyer 1962). By his establishment of an independent health physics group with which accelerator designers could consult on matters of accelerator radiation safety, Moyer set a pattern followed by Accelerator Laboratories around the world. Wade's respect for Burton Moyer influenced his entire career and later inspired him to work to establish the Moyer Scholarship. This latter endeavour exemplifies Wade's dogged will and determination. Surprisingly, when the Northern California Chapter made an offer to the Board of the Health Physics Society to fund the Moyer Award as a national scholarship there was resistance. Neither Wade nor I understood why. Wade persisted and demolished the politics. And today, the Moyer Award is one of the most highly regarded awards for education in radiological protection. WADE PATTERSON---THE SCIENTIST. Wade arrived at the Radiation Laboratory (``the RadLab'') of the University of California, Berkeley, at the most felicitous of times. Incredibly, despite the enormity of events and long duration of the Second World War, it had only been 14# years since Lawrence and Livingston had first published an account of their invention of the cyclotron. The deflection of accelerator technology to the war effort had proved a great military and political success. These were the days when the heady successes of science were generously supported by a grateful Congress and the nation. Relations with the funding agencies were friendly and conducted with mutual respect. Scientists from the National Laboratories were recognized as experts in their disciplines and as national resources. How different from today where the relationship between scientists and regulators seems to be one of confrontation! One's first impressions on arrival at the RadLab are the glorious and spectacular views from ``the hill,'' as it is fondly known to the Berkeley campus, doubtlessly unmatched by any national laboratory anywhere in the world. In 1947, Ernest Lawrence asked Burton Moyer to take responsibility for accelerator radiological safety and Wade was invited to join the new Health Physics Group, which he was later to lead from 1965 until 1973. Wade could draw on eminent scientists for leadership, support, and counsel. From the very beginning, even before the Manhattan Project, there had been an interest in the biological consequences of exposure to the radiations produced by the early accelerators. At Berkeley, the Lawrence brothers pioneered studies of the radiological effects of radiation using accelerators. Many of their colleagues shared this interest. In the late 1940s and 1950s, a group of scientists who congregated at the RadLab made significant decisions that greatly influenced the future of our profession. Among them were the Lawrences, of course; Edward Lofgren; Edwin McMillan; Burton Moyer; Wolfgang Panofsky; and Cornelius Tobias. It is natural, therefore, that the ``Birthplace of the Cyclotron'' should also become the ``Birthplace of Accelerator Health Physics.'' The Patterson-Moyer group established the model which most accelerator laboratories were to later follow. Some of the group's members (Joe McCaslin, Al Smith, Lloyd Stephens, and Roger Wallace) will be familiar to many in this audience. This wonderfully diverse mix of able scientists and technicians was eminently capable of forging the dreams of theorists into working instruments so vital to their mission. With such a group of highly motivated and talented people, the achievements of the RadLab Health Physics Group became almost legendary. In 1957, in New York, the first important conference on the Shielding of High-Energy Accelerators (Solon 1957) was held. By this time, Wade's work at Berkeley had established him as one of the world's experts in the field and he was invited to attend this conference. Many of those in attendance were later to become laboratory directors, leaders of accelerator design teams, and professional accelerator health physicists. They left the conference determined not to repeat the radiological safety mistakes made with the design and construction of the early proton synchrotrons, the ``Cosmotron'' and the ``Bevatron.'' Pief Panofsky has written a shrewd analysis of the development of the accelerator health physics profession up to about the time of the New York meeting in the following terms: "During those days (immediately after the Second World War), the principal calculations relating to accelerator radiological protection were more than likely done by the responsible physicists rather than separate specialists. For instance, Norman Ramsey at Harvard University personally did many of the shielding calculations for the Harvard cyclotron, and I had the privilege to calculate electromagnetic shower propagation and the resultant track length for photonuclear processes in shielding for the proposal to construct the Stanford two-mile linear accelerator. But the burden of accelerator radiological protection became sufficiently heavy that specialists were needed; in consequence, they were grown from within the accelerator and particle physics communities after the war"(Panofsky 1994). I believe we can identify the New York meeting as the time when the health physics profession achieved its separate identity, with Wade Patterson as the first of the ``new breed'' that Panofsky describes and thus the first professional health physicist. A review of his bibliography reveals that, for the 26 years from 1947 to 1973, Wade devoted the bulk of his professional energies to the solution of a great number of diverse accelerator radiation problems, and consequently gained international recognition as an accelerator expert. For example, he was a member of the first team to design and perform high-energy neutron shielding experiments; develop an entire armory of radiation detectors; and explore and analyze radiation fields of the early cyclotrons and the Bevatron. The team also identified and quantified Skyshine; theoretically and experimentally explored the relationship between source strengths of fast neutrons and the resultant and thermal neutron influence inside concrete accelerator vaults; and assessed the radioactivity induced in the concrete of accelerator rooms and its magnitude. In 1966, Wade and his team designed and executed the most ambitious accelerator shielding experiment to date (Gilbert et al. 1968). These measurements were made at the 28# GeV CERN Proton Synchrotron; however, the data were so extensive that they still have not been entirely analyzed. The database obtained from this experiment was invaluable to the design of the third-generation proton synchrotrons (the 300 GeV SPS at CERN and the 200 GeV FermiLab synchrotron). At his ``so-called'' retirement from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 1984, Art Toy, Department Head of the Hazards Control Department, said of Wade that during this time he ``knew more about accelerator health physics than any other person then alive.'' What is not so generally known is that Wade also made his mark in the broader field of radiological protection. For example, he was involved in some of the first measurements in high natural radiation areas around the world (India and Egypt); examination of dental radiological procedures with consequent improved protection of staff and patients; evaluation of the incidence of cataracts in cyclotron workers; measurement of the energy spectrum of neutrons produced in the Earth's atmosphere; nuclear weapons test fallout studies in the San Francisco Bay Area; and limitations in the power of epidemiological studies in understanding the health effects of humans exposed to ionizing radiations. One of his more ``glamorous'' exploits was in dosimetry for the laboratory simulations of ``eye-flashes'' experienced by the Apollo 13 astronauts. In 1969, Edwin Aldrin and the other crew members of the Apollo Lunar Missions reported observation of eye-flashes during flight. These eye-flashes were most frequently observed during part of the ill-fated Apollo# 13 Mission, when the module lost power and the astronauts were therefore well dark-adapted. Cornelius Tobias had previously speculated that such flashes might be observed and attributed them to the interaction of high-LET particles in the retina. An initial experiment with the 184-inch synchrocyclotron in 1970 in which Tobias exposed his eyes to neutrons supported this hypothesis, as seen in the photograph below. Wade, as leader of the Health Physics Group, was actively involved in determining the dose to the eye and head of human subjects. Whenever a dinner table conversation turned to serious topics, such as the great confusion in the quantities and units used in radiological protection, Wade loved to tell of an amusing incident during the Apollo 13 experiment. One senior participant, intent on obtaining his own estimate of dose and not entirely trusting of the health physicists, appeared with a quartz-fibre electroscope partially immersed in a beaker full of water. After taking a reading in the neutron beam, he was heard to ask a colleague, ``How many rep does that correspond to''? (For those who miss the point the ``rep,'' roentgen-equivalent- physical, was a unit of radiation exposure introduced in 1948 and long since abandoned by 1970). As I write this, I can hear Wade's belly-laugh as he told this tale. In 1973, Wade moved to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore. His responsibilities as Head of the Hazards Control Department were more diverse than at the RadLab in Berkeley and largely administrative in character. However, he ran the department with great aplomb and was much loved by his staff. After his official retirement in 1984, Wade remained in harness continuing to work on a variety of projects, bringing to them his broad experience and diligence, and his scientific and analytical skills. Wade was never afraid of controversy. He chastised the radiation protection establishment for its poor science and excessively conservative modeling. Characteristically, his last significant work was to produce a compilation of radiation dose-effect data that he believed would prove helpful in discussing the scientific basis for the establishment of radiological protection standards (Patterson et al. 1997). WADE PATTERSON---THE EDUCATOR. Wade held a deep-rooted belief that the health physics profession should hold high standards of competence and integrity, and worked tirelessly to this end. He worked steadfastly to establish a certifying board and was one of the first certified health physicists. He took the setting of high professional standards very seriously, working hard on many committees, serving as a proctor, setting examinations, and sitting on review panels to establish a sensible and credible examination system. He also served on the American Board of Health Physics from 1968 to 1974 and as Chairman for the last four of these years. From 1967 to 1971, Patterson organized the Berkeley Accelerator Health Physics Training Course. Over a hundred scientists, mostly from the United States but many from abroad, attended this course. With a cadré of lecturers drawn from the RadLab, as well as invited lecturers from accelerator laboratories around the world, this course was one of the most effective means of widely dispersing the collective experience of accelerator radiation safety. It might be said that most of the first-generation accelerator health physicists were deeply influenced, directly or indirectly, by this course. The experience gleaned was distilled into the well-known text ``Accelerator Health Physics'' published in 1973. Much later, Wade turned his attention to the training of technologists and was very supportive of the National Registry of Radiological Protection Technologists. In recognition of his efforts, he was awarded the Arthur F. Humm Jr. Award in 1992. It was with this interest in the human aspects of the health physics profession that, about four years ago, Wade Patterson and I embarked on the task of collecting the memories of people who had been engaged in the study of accelerator radiation phenomena, mostly since the end of the Second World War. It was one of the most delightful experiences of both our long careers---more than 90# years between us. Thirty-four accelerator health physicists from around the world generously gave of their time and provided us with a fascinating olio of personal memories, technical and scientific discussions, and historical perspectives. PROFESSIONAL MAN. Patterson was an energetic worker for his profession serving in many senior posts and committees of the U.S. Health Physics Society. He served as President of the Northern California chapter in 1970 and as a two-term member on the Board---the first from 1966 to 1967, and the second from 1969 to 1972. As Editor-in-Chief of the Health Physics Journal from 1977--1982, he showed great innovative instinct by introducing a team of associate editors. At the time of his death, he was a member of the Nominating Committee. For this work, he was much honored by the Health Physics Society (Meritorious Performance Award, 1983; Distinguished Achievement Award, 1986); the American Academy of Health Physics (William McAdams Award, 1990), the National Registry of Radiological Protection Technicians, and the U.S. Department of Energy. He was a Fellow of the Health Physics Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. WADE PATTERSON---THE MAN. If one word described Wade Patterson it would be ``integrity.'' He was as good as his word. To some, he was a conservative figure who, in many respects, was ahead of his time. Through the Health Physics Group at Berkeley passed many students and guests of all countries, race, and religion. Wade supported many women in advancing their careers in a male-dominated discipline. He did this instinctively, not because of any imposed rules, but because it was the human and decent thing to do. Wade was immensely proud of his five children, all of whom are living successful lives. Stephen works for an airline as a cabin attendant; Donald is a surveyor living in Montana, and Bruce is a pilot living in Washington. Charles is a professional athlete, and Janet, the youngest, is a hotel manager. There is an interesting anecdote worth telling concerning Janet. When Janet was expected, I remember Wade bemoaning his fate to me that, while he had produced four fine sons, all of whom he dearly loved, he nevertheless yearned for a daughter but there was just no chance---the odds were stacked against him. I reminded him that, in the absence of any pathology, the chance of a baby being a girl was slightly greater than of being a boy. It was clear to me that while Wade's mind accepted this argument---he had, after all, taken statistics courses at ``Cal''---his heart told him otherwise. The day after Janet's birth in August 1972, while on holiday with my family in Pacific Grove, I received an excited telephone call from Wade. ``By Golly, Ralph'' he said ``you were right, it's a girl!'' Wade's respect for the predictions of the binomial distribution deepened enormously at that very moment. Beyond his profession, Wade had many facets to his personality and diverse interests. His youth had given him a great enthusiasm for travel, and he was a mine of information about his native California. He loved the outdoors, no doubt a result of growing up in the Western United States in its majestic and almost painfully beautiful scenery. He was an enthusiastic hunter; he displayed a keen interest in public affairs and politics and was widely read. There is an amusing anecdote about Wade and his hunting that he told me in Lakeview the last time I saw him. It beats all ``the one that got away'' stories that I have ever heard. Many years ago, he and Gordon McPeak, a friend from the RadLab, went North to hunt for elk. After many patient hours waiting, they saw an Elk emerge from the forest across the meadow and up wind of them and began a stately walk across their line of fire. Gordon was slightly ahead of Wade and got off the first shot. The Elk appeared not to have been harmed. McPeak fired a second shot, again with no apparent effect, and in doing so opened up a shot for Wade. Wade fired and the Elk immediately dropped to its knees. ``That's my Elk!'' said Wade. McPeak wasn't so sure. He walked over to the animal and searched for the fatal bullets and found two---both his own. ``No Wade, you're wrong! That's my elk,'' he said. Wade, unmoved said, ``Ah! But Gordon, I used high velocity bullets. You wouldn't find them in the carcass. The bullet would have passed right through.'' His passion for hunting I never fully understood. I recall in November 1970 my curiosity got the better of me. We were both in Idaho Falls and Wade had arranged to go duck-hunting and fishing at the end of the week. I asked if I could accompany him as an observer, feeling decidedly an advocate for the hunted. The first day we set off Southwest, down the Snake River to the American Falls Reservoir, about a 60-mile distance. We headed for a ``secret fishing spot'' known to Jan Cusimano. We fished all day, truly without a single bite. Evidently, the spot was so secret that even the fish didn't know about it, and it took several months for Jan Cusimano to live this experience down. Not deterred by this misadventure, the very next day we set off in darkness and drove about 60 miles North, near the Camas Wildlife Refuge. Space does not permit a full description of all the antics of duck decoys, bird calls, and the like. As the day wore on, hip-high in freezing water, I prayed that the day would come to a quick end. It seemed to me that every duck that flew over us took one look at our decoys and veered away at Mach 1. In all, a total of about five shots were fired all day but alas no bag of ducks to be taken home to be prepared à la orange. By sunset, I recall being miserably cold and the best event of the day was a slug of most welcomed Jack Daniels from the bottle. With these experiences under my belt, my political views changed. I was no longer anti-hunting---I pitied the poor hunters! THE LAST DAYS . Wade returned to Lakeview, Oregon, to spend the last couple years of his life in that wonderful scenery of the Oregon high desert. Lakeview is one of those small Western towns where the memories linger long after one leaves. Everyone knows one another and is incredibly friendly. People greet you in the street, look you in the eye and engage you in conversation; and neighbours are immediately there to help in time of need. It is what every neighbourhood in every big city should be, but is not. Wade's illness took a rapid course. In January 1997, at the San Jose meeting of the Health Physics Society, Wade complained of back ache. We discussed it and, both being sufferers, agreed that ``nursing it along'' was all that was needed. Wade in his last year. In July, Wade was at the Health Physics Society meeting in San Antonio, Texas. He was experiencing some pain then and had to cancel appointments. Mavis and I were in England for all of August. When we returned, there was an email message which said that Wade was seriously ill with metastatic cancer of the spine. When the facts of his medical condition were clear to him, Wade declined radical therapy because in his case success was problematical. A couple of months before his death, he sent some of us a letter ``running his colours up the flagpole'' or, if you will, his version of Martin Luther's ``Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir.'' In it, he stated clearly and succinctly his views on those aspects of life we hold to be most important. He knew exactly where he stood and in what he believed. He was a Presbyterian and a Republican. His life had been good and he was extremely proud of his career and family. He was clear headed and knew what he faced. May God give us all similar grace when our time comes. Mavis and I traveled to Lakeview to see Wade on 23 and 24 September. It was a great comfort to know that he was in a wonderfully caring annex to the local hospital with a calm and serene atmosphere. We saw him twice. He was frail but in good spirits and was able to talk with us for an hour or so. We talked of the good times, had a few laughs, and left with tears in our eyes. Wade faced his last painful weeks calmly, in a matter-of-fact manner, and with great courage. During this difficult time, the support of his family and many friends was a source of great comfort to him. Wade died in Lakeview on 7 October 1997. He is survived by his five children Stephen, Donald, Bruce, Charles, and Janet and by four grandchildren. With his passing, the Health Physics Profession lost one of its most significant figures. We shall not see his like again. POSTSCRIPT. Several of Wade's friends from Berkeley and Livermore drove the 400 miles to Lakeview to attend his funeral on 17 October. The next day, in a somber mood, Mavis and I headed home. We turned South at Burney through Lassen National Park. Winter was on its way. There had been a fresh fall of snow, and the snow crept right up to the roadside. The windward side of the mountain was blanketed white, its bulk set against a clear blue sky. The bright sunlight shone through the golden aspens with their leaves shaking in the breeze. If there is a Paradise, this must be very much like it. We drove on listening to Fauré's glorious and optimistic requiem and thought of Wade. Pie Jesu, Domine Dona eis requiem: Dona eis requiem sempiternam Father's Day 21 June 1998 Acknowledgement Work performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-ENG-48. References University of California Radiation Laboratory. ``Shooting Stars seen in LRL neutron beam.'' The Magnet 15 (9), 3--5, 1970. Gilbert, W.S. et al. (1968) 1966 CERN-LRL-REL Shielding Experiment at the CERN Proton Synchrotron, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Berkeley, Calif., UCRL-17941, September 1968. Moyer, B. J. ``Survey Methods for Fast- and High-Energy Neutrons.'' Nucleonics 10(5), 14--19 (1952). Moyer, B. J. ``Neutron Physics of Concern to the Biologist. Radiat. Res. 1, 10--22 (1954). Moyer, B. J. ``Method of Calculating the Shielding Enclosure for the Berkeley Bevatron.'' Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Shielding of Large Accelerators, Paris, 1962, (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1962). Panofsky, W. K. H. ``Foreword.'' In:The History of Accelerator Radiation Protection. Patterson, H. W. and Thomas, R. H. Eds. (Nuclear Technology Publishing, Ashford, Kent, 1994), pp. viii-x. Patterson, H. W. and Thomas, R. H., Eds. The History of Accelerator Radiation Protection. (Nuclear Technology Publish ing, Ashford, Kent, 1994). Patterson, H. W. ``My Life and Times-- A Personal Memoir.'' (1995, unpublished). Patterson, H. W., Hickman, D. P., and Altman, S. M. ``A New Biblography of Recent Radiation Dose Effects Data'' Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif., UCRL-JC-128325 (September 1997) (submitted to Health Physics Journal). Segre`, E. Eulogy given on the Berkeley Campus, University of California, 1973 Segre`, E. A Mind Always in Motion: the autobiography of Emilio Segre`. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993). Solon, L. E., Ed. Proceedings of the Conference on Shielding of High-Energy Accelerators, New York, April, 1957. USAEC Report TID-7545,1957. [from the Editor: my apologies to the author for any errors in this tribute. I counted on the accuracy of LLNL's proofreading.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HOW TO SUBSCRIBE / UPDATE YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To add yourself to the mailing list for the IARPE Newsletter, send an e-mail message to listserv@slac.stanford.edu The body of your message should contain the following command: subscribe iarpe-l Please don't forget to update your e-mail address if you move, change jobs or just change your computing environment. The update consists in canceling the old by 'unsubscribe' and submitting a new subscription, as illustrated below: unsubscribe iarpe-l your_old_email_address subscribe iarpe-l end If the body of your message, as in this example, contains more than a single line/command, it is good practice to finish with the 'end' command, especially if your mailer adds a signature. If you experience problems with subscribing/updating, please send me an e-mail to schwahn@jlab.org and I will do it for you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Closing Thoughts ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "If you put something on the World Wide Web, you had better be perfectly accurate or sufficiently vague" - anonymous, June 1998 (referring to RADSAFE) "Accept that some days you're the pigeon, and some days you're the statue." - unknown "Needing a man is like needing a parachute. If he isn't there the first time you need him, chances are you won't be needing him again." - unknown "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup." - unknown "To be yourself in a world that tries, night and day, to make you just like everybody else - is to fight the greatest battle there ever is to fight, and never stop fighting." - E. E. Cummings