[ RadSafe ] AW: Different technical radiological question.

Sun Dec 16 15:04:36 CST 2007

You are really fooling us all. If you are not able to answer this question,
try a basic radiation protection course. RADSAFE is without doubt open to
any questions, but not to those of persons like you. Especially you should
have noted that it is intended for radiation professional and not bloody
amateurs like you.  

Analogous to what Glenn wrote - I do not want to fall down to your level. 

Hoping for your insight - probably in vain.

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 16. Dezember 2007 21:42
An: Franz Schönhofer
Betreff: Different technical radiological question.

OK, let's skip that one for a moment and go to page # 2 of "First Year Rad 
Lab".

I have a vial with 20 milliCuries of Tc-99m labeled phosphate. After 61 
hours, how much Tc-99 is in the vial  (using the Curie for activity) and 
why? How long will it remain there?

Answer to

GEOelectronics at netscape.com

comment:
a.. RULE #1 from the radsafe Rules page>
a.. The list is open to all points of view on radiation protection issues.

Radiation protection certainly encompasses First Responders, Calibration 
Labs, Equipment Techs, Field Operatives, Nucleonics Techs, and Apparatus 
Builders of all kinds..

Not *just* politicians, administrators, and lawyers, certainly not only 
PhDs.

George Dowell

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Franz Schönhofer" <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
To: "'Geo>K0FF'" <GEOelectronics at netscape.com>; "'Robert Barish'" 
<robbarish at verizon.net>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:46 PM
Subject: AW: Tc-99 dics surface emission question

Mr. Sinebrychoff (KOFF),

How often have I to tell you that your questions are just ridiculous?

May I for a last time try to enlighten you? I am very patient.

A source containing 27 pCi Tc-99 has by definition a certain radionuclide
content and activity concentration (Bq and Bq/g or whatsoever). Though US
authorities have still not introduced the Bq-unit there should be no problem
to convert pCi into Bq. Bq of a source have nothing to do with any beta
particles leaving the surface or whatsoever. This is a question of
efficiency of measurement devices. Your claims are so ridiculous - they are
usually treated in the field of "detector efficiency" in any basic radiation
detection course.

What you propagate here is absolutely below the level of any basic course of
radiation protection or radiation measurement at universities.

What Mr KOFF distributes is unacceptable since long - we have a troll here
on RADSAFE again. He has no idea about what he is posting on, but still does
it, claiming that he is an expert. Obviously anybody can enter the RADSAFE
list. I remind everybody that my clearly scientific contributions to RADSAFE
were "monitored" for months.

I wonder why his persons is still posting on RADSAFE, he is a troll.

Best regards to everybody,

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 16. Dezember 2007 19:56
An: Franz Schönhofer; 'Robert Barish'; radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: Tc-99 dics surface emission question

Franz, this is the question, asking it directly of you, answer it without
help.

REPOST OF THIS PART:
Forgive my inexperience. One more attempt to phrase the question so it won't
be misunderstood.

I have a 27 pCi Tc-99 test disc which is electroplated onto a stainless
steel disc.

How many beta particles per minute are expected to leave the front surface
of the disc?

Disregard self-absorption, half-life, counting error, confidence level, and
systematic error. Most of that has nothing to do with this calculation
anyway.

By knowing the expected beta emission rate, and then measuring the actual
detected rate by the sensor, the
beta efficiency at the Tc-99 energy for that sensor can be calculated.

 Reply to:

 George Dowell at

 GEOelectronics at netscape.com

If it is not understood, I will try to rephrase it.

George Dowell

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Franz Schönhofer" <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
To: "'Robert Barish'" <robbarish at verizon.net>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:10 PM
Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Litroenergy

Thank you Robert, for forwarding the information about this patent. I have
followed it with much interest because I have conducted a research  on the
transfer of tritium from self-luminous dials to the human body almost 20
years ago, with quite interesting results - several thousands of Bq/l in
urine after only a few hours and days exposure from watches. Still the doses
were negligible.

These findings might not in any way apply to the claims of other RADSAFErs
and certainly not those of the new radiation protection specialist KOFF
(Finnish beer brand) on RADSAFE.

Expect more comments on this question later.

Best regards,

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag
von Robert Barish
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Dezember 2007 22:03
An: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Litroenergy

The patent information on the "new" light source can be viewed at:

http://www.freshpatents.com/Long-life-self-luminous-microspheres-dt20070830p
tan20070200074.php?type=description

What is most interesting is the various blog postings about this material.
Of particular interest is the posting of the company's engineer, Mr. Stark,
who states unequivocally that the material contains no tritium or any other
radiactive material, in contradictiction to both the patent description and
any logic that we on RADSAFE (or at least I) can bring to this subject!

See, for example, Steve Stark's December 11th posts at:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/12/new_light_glows.php?q=

and

http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/flexible-light-source-for-247-lighting/

where he emphatically denies the use of tritium or any radioactive material,
despite the patent description.

How strange is this?

Robert Barish, Ph.D., CHP

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:

http://radlab.nl/radsafe/