[ RadSafe ] FW: Reporter's questionabout lowerlimits ofdetection

Wed Aug 10 10:41:55 CDT 2011

Kai,

since many days the Raman spectroscopist is twisting back and forth, up and down, because he simply cannot admit that his arguments are nonsense and that his car filters are absolutely unable to yield a representative result for contamination. This is with regard to any quantitative analysis and dose calculations. Furthermore his "analyses" obviously do not yield any information about I-131, I-132, Cs-137, Cs-134, not to talk about any other radionuclides like Sr-90, Ba-140, Ag 110m, Cer-144 etc, etc. etc, which are abundant in fresh fallout. 

This seems in according with his character, that he simply is not able to admit that he is completely wrong. He has always to be right - even if he sometimes admit very tiny "uncertainties". 

Car filters are absolutely unsuited to determine radionuclide concentrations in air and their impact for the dose to the population.

I have no hope that this Raman spectroscopist will ever understand the reasoning behind this statement. Why does he still post on RADSAFE?

Best regards,

Franz

---- Kai Kaletsch <eic at shaw.ca> schrieb:
> Chris,
> 
> Then I don't understand the comparison to the average atmospheric levels 
> that you cite. I would not be surprised that a car's filter sees 1000 times 
> more suspended particulate than the atmospheric average. (That's why engines 
> have filters. If they were breathing clean air, they wouldn't need filters.) 
> Why should I be surprised that rad fallout behaves similarly?
> 
> Cheers,
> Kai
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Busby, Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk>
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" 
> <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>; "The International Radiation Protection (Health 
> Physics) Mailing List" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 3:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] FW: Reporter's question about lowerlimits 
> ofdetection
> 
> 
> > Dear Kai,
> > The point of the exercise was to look at what people are inhaling. Not 
> > people who stand on the top of a hill.
> > Cheers
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Kai Kaletsch
> > Sent: Wed 10/08/2011 06:47
> > To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] FW: Reporter's question about lowerlimits 
> > ofdetection
> >
> > Stand beside a busy street and take a few deep breaths. After you are done
> > coughing up dust, go take a few deep breaths on a quiet hill top. Is it 
> > the
> > same air? No.
> >
> > The air near a road is not representative of average atmospheric 
> > particulate
> > concentration. It is driven by re-suspension.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kai
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Busby, Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk>
> > To: "parthasarathy k s" <ksparth at yahoo.co.uk>; "The International 
> > Radiation
> > Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>;
> > <SAFarber at optonline.net>; "The International Radiation Protection (Health
> > Physics) Mailing List" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>; "The International
> > Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
> > <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
> > Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 6:39 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] FW: Reporter's question about lower limits
> > ofdetection
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Radsafers,
> > It was my intention to show that the levels in Japan in air were not
> > trivial. I do know this because I have measured it in several car filters
> > for which the engine size is known and the number of km driven after the
> > incident is known. The efficiency of the filters is assumed to be 50% but
> > this is not known for sure although I have asked the manufacturers. The
> > filters showed between 1.2 and 3Bq per cu metre of Cs-137. This can be
> > compared with the attached data from Harwell. The results were from my lab
> > and also from Harwell who we paid to do the analysis.
> > I am interested to learn that the levels were higher in the USA during the
> > atmospheric tests than in the UK: Stewart Farber says 100mBq/m3. Probably
> > because the US is where many of the tests were done.
> > But my argument was about Japan, not levels in the USA. I am quite aware
> > that the levels in the USA were far smaller, as we would expect. But i see 
> > a
> > maximum of 0.116pCi is 4.29mBq/m3 The average is 0.7mBq/m3. Compare with 
> > the
> > graph attached. But I think it depends on where you live, doesnt it? And
> > what other stuff comes along as a passenger.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > Chris
> >
> > Oranges:
> >
> > The US EPA made excellent measurements of airborne Cs-137 in the US 
> > released
> > from Fukushima after the accident. Air particulate samples were taken all
> > over the USA by the EPA. Based on calibrated Hi-Vo samplers and calibrated
> > counting geometry for air filters, the highest levels of Cs-137 in air
> > measured were seen in HI, CA, AZ, NV. Cs-137 levels were reported as
> > [picoCuries per cubic meter]:
> >
> > Minimum: 0.000238 pCi/m^3
> > Maximum: 0.116
> > Average: 0.0189
> >
> > The above EPA data can be seen at:
> > <http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_output?Llocation=EPA+Reg
> > ion&subloc=09&media=AIR-FILTER&radi=Cesium-137&Fromyear=2011&Toyear=2011&uni
> > ts=Traditional>
> >
> >
> > Open air testing of 500 nuclear bombs by the US and Soviets, ending in 
> > 1963,
> > led to many years of significant ongoing nuclear fallout from the mid 
> > 1950s,
> > reaching a peak level of total terrestrial deposition in 1968. After 1968
> > the environmental inventory of Cs-137 and Sr-90 continued to drop steadily
> > with minor blips in the US from small nuclear bomb tests by India and 
> > China.
> > Chernobyl added no more than 1% to the environmental fallout inventory in
> > the US.
> >
> > During the MANY YEARS of nuclear test fallout airborne Cs-137 in 
> > essentially
> > the entire Northern Hemisphere, including the US, was roughly about 0.1
> > pCi/m^3. Peak levels of airborne Cs-137 during the period of open air
> > testing were commonly measured at 0.5 pCi/m^3 and higher.
> >
> > As noted above, the EPA measured a SHORT TERM average of airborne Cs-137 
> > in
> > the US from Fukushima of 0.0189 pCi/m^3  in those states having the 
> > highest
> > measured concentrations.
> >
> > The LONG-TERM average level of airborne Cs-137 in the US during the many
> > years of atomic bomb fallout during and for a few years after open air
> > testing ended was about 5 times higher than the average SHORT TERM peak
> > levels of accurately sampled and measured airborne Cs-137 seen in the US
> > from Fukushima [based upon a few measurements fading away to essentially
> > nothing after a short time].
> >
> > Given that what is important in calculating total radiation dose is the
> > ratio of the time integrated concentration of airborne exposure to Cs-137 
> > in
> > this case,  the total exposure of people in the US from open air testing
> > fallout is at least 500 times greater than the total exposure from
> > short-term peak airborne Cs-137 in the US measured after the Fukushima
> > accident [in looking at the areas in the US that had the highest recent
> > airborne Cs-137 levels].
> >
> > And yes, I consider total time-integrated exposure to Fukushima airborne
> > Cs-137 and Sr-90 in the US that is about one part in 500  [or less] of the
> > time integrated radiation exposure from nuclear bomb test fallout in the 
> > US
> > to be trivial. -Oranges
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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