[ RadSafe ] A different radiological question.

Sun Dec 16 15:40:14 CST 2007

George

There will be 20 x 37000000 atom of Tc-99 and as the half life of Tc-99 is 
21200 years, it will "remain" there with this half life. That is, there will 
be 10 x 37000000 atoms after 21200 years,  5 x 37000000 atoms after 2 x 
21200 years, etc.

John

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Geo>K0FF" <GEOelectronics at netscape.com>
To: "'Robert Barish'" <robbarish at verizon.net>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:43 PM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] A different 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ 