[ RadSafe ] FW: ...detection (BUSBY)

[franz.schoenhofer at chello.at]

Cindy,

I share your concerns insofar, that they are well defined. What I wonder is why this well known antinuclear activist is getting so much bandwidth on RADSAFE with his ridiculous "scientific" results. One should disregard them completely, even if this would  be regarded by some funny antinuclear groups be regarded as "politically incorrect".

I recommend to ignore those absurd messages.

Best regards,

Franz



From: "Chris Busby" <C.Busby at ulster.ac. uk > 
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" < radsafe @ agni .phys. iit . edu >, "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" < radsafe @ agni .phys. iit . edu >, "Richard D. Urban Jr." < radmax @ earthlink .net>, "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" < radsafe @ agni .phys. iit . edu > 
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2011 1:09:00 PM 
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] FW : Reporter's question about lower         limitsof         detection (BUSBY) 


Dear Mike, 
No 
It would be the activity Bq . 
It is the filter that we need to know the radioactivity content of since that is what the air passes through. 
The activity concentration i.e. Bq /kg would be of no utility whatever. 
Chris 


-----Original Message----- 
From: radsafe -bounces@ agni .phys. iit . edu on behalf of Cowie , Michael I 
Sent: Mon 08/08/2011 13:16 
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing        List; Richard D. Urban Jr.; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing        List 
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] FW : Reporter's question about lower limitsof         detection (BUSBY) 
  
Trying to remain civil Chris, if I accept all your "assumptions" would it not be the activity concentration that would be higher and not the activity? 

Mike 

-----