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

Tue Aug 9 14:24:52 CDT 2011

Why bother with the filters at all, you would have been better just taking a swab of the bonnet (hood for the US contingent).......think about that!

Mike

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 9, 2011, at 8:23 PM, "Busby, Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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