[ RadSafe ] FW: Reporter's question aboutlowerlimitsofdetection (BUSBY)

Tue Aug 9 12:58:39 CDT 2011

Chris,

(1) I hope you will acknowledge that you made an error in your post
immediately below, in that it is Bq/m3, not Bq/m2.  If you cannot admit
to making such an obvious mistake, I don't know what to say.
(2) YOU are the one who brought up the mass of the filter.  Everyone
else has clearly been talking about concentrations in air.  
(3) You say, "So we have the amount of air."  I do not agree.  None of
the other professionals in the field who have made their opinions known
here agree with you.  I am actually quite comfortable with uncertainty,
and recognize that all sampling processes and analysis processes have
some level of uncertainty.  I am even comfortable with sometimes having
to accept more uncertainty than is absolutely necessary because of
conflicting priorities, such as cost or time.  I am even comfortable
with some sampling techniques providing qualitative information, but not
quantitative information.  In my opinion, using an air filter from a car
can at best provide qualitative information.  This is because the
uncertainties concerning the amount of air through the filter are too
high.  Yes, I saw your assumptions that you used in calculating the air
volume, but I have no confidence in them.  I might have been more
impressed with them if you did error propagation with your calculations,
but I suspect that all that would do is make it even clearer that this
is not a viable way of collecting quantifiable data.  
(4) In response to your email replying to me; yes, you do.  The evidence
is in the RadSafe archive, but it would be pointless to hunt it up, as
you would ignore it, as you have ignored the several times people have
researched your sources and given a point-by-point rebuttal of some
claim you've made.    

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:22 AM
To: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at; The International Radiation Protection
(Health Physics) Mailing List; Richard D. Urban Jr.; The International
Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Cc: Busby, Chris
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] FW: Reporter's question
aboutlowerlimitsofdetection (BUSBY)

Dear Herr Minsterialrat,

Yes, I am serious. I think you have made some fundamental error in your
understanding. 
The final requirement is Bq per cubic metre of air. 
So we have the amount of air.
And we need the amount of Bq.
Then we divide the second by the first to get Bq/m2.
OK. Can you follow that?

If we had the Bq per kg of filter, then we would need to know the mass
of the filter.
Then we would use this to calculate the number of Bq in the filter (by
dividing the Bq/kg by the mass of the filter in kg). OK?

Think about it.

Sincerely
Chris Busby

-----Original Message-----
From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at [mailto:franz.schoenhofer at chello.at]
Sent: Mon 08/08/2011 20:44
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List; Richard D. Urban Jr.; The International Radiation Protection
(Health Physics) MailingList
Cc: Busby, Chris
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] FW: Reporter's question about
lowerlimitsofdetection (BUSBY)

Mr. Chris,  prof. etc.

Are you serious? I hope not.

What is of importance in radiation protection and dose calculations is
definitely the activity concentration and not the activity deposited
after an unknown time, an unknown rate etc. etc. 

Could you please refrain from posting your nonsensical comments on
RADSAFE?

Franz

---- "Busby schrieb:
> 
> 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 at 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
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 2:15 PM
> To: Richard D. Urban Jr.; The International Radiation Protection
(Health Physics) Mailing List; The International Radiation Protection
(Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] FW: Reporter's question about lower limits of
detection (BUSBY)
> 
> 
> Dear Radmax,
> Is that how you see yourself? Amazing!
> Most of physics is done with estimates and assumptions, but maybe you
have not ever done any real physics. You then have a calculation result
with levels of uncertainty which you allow for. Otherwise most of
physics cannot be done. What we do know is the activity in Cs137 and
Cs134 of the filters. The cars were driven for 150km before the filters
were removed. The engine cc was 600cc (these are small engines that the
Jap cars use). The assumption is that the mean rpm was 2500. This is a
very conservative assumption as these were commuter cars. So the real
value is likely to be higher. This would make the activity higher.
Perhaps you know that a 4 stroke engine transfers its cc worth of air
every 2 revolutions. As to the 50% trapping assumption,this ia also
likely to be conservative. So if there is any error the real value will
be higher.
> You, and Mr Franz, and a few others are so appallingly rude it is very
difficult to deal with you as if you were scientists and not ignorant
rednecks in some cheap bar. I thought the radsafe list was a discussion
arena not some internet blog where idiots insult each other. Try to
remain civil.
> Best regards
> Chris Busby
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 
> From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Richard D. Urban
Jr.
> Sent: Sun 07/08/2011 20:24
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] FW: Reporter's question about lower limits of
detection (BUSBY)
> 
> And just how did you calculate that volume... RPM's???  Were you
driving with the owners of these cars?  What gear were they in?  What
speed were they driving?  Correct tuning or improper air-fuel mixture?
Uphill, Downhill, standing still or moving slowly in traffic/debris
fields, A/C on or off.. ?  Distance's from Fuku, time after event,
direction to plume...?  How many thousands of cubic meters of air had
entered these filters PRIOR to Fuku ???
> 
> 50% eff but not 'sure', Really?  You always seem to 'ASSUME' alot.
> 
> Your numbers, just as the rest of your drivel, is again more
ABSOLUTLEY CHERRY PICKED B.S.
> 
> Any REAL scientist would not publish anything with your levels of
uncertainty.
> 
> Please just go away.  Don't come back until you have something
actually 'quantifiable'.
> 
> Radmax
> 
> 
> -----
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> The contents of this email, including all related responses, files and
attachments transmitted with it (collectively referred to as "this
Email"), are intended solely for the use of the individual/entity to
whom/which they are addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
legally privileged information. This Email may not be disclosed or
forwarded to anyone else without authorization from the originator of
this Email. If you have received this Email in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete all copies from your system. Please note
that the views or opinions presented in this Email are those of the
author and may not necessarily represent those of Saudi Aramco. The
recipient should check this Email and any attachments for the presence
of any viruses. Saudi Aramco accepts no liability for any damage caused
by any virus/error transmitted by this Email.
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

--
Franz Schoenhofer, PhD, MinRat
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
Austria
mobile: ++43 699 1706 1227

_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu