Re: 436.37 peak

[dpharrison@aep.com]

Would this still be so if the K-40 peak of 1460 wasn't identified?




"Oldewage, Hans D" <HDOLDEW@sandia.gov> on 03/15/2000 10:36:31 AM

Please respond to radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu

To:   Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
cc:    (bcc: David P Harrison/BC2/AEPIN)

Subject:  Re: 436.37 peak




I would lean towards a double escape peak (I believe this is the correct
term) from K-40 (1460 keV - 1.022 keV = 438 keV).

=====================
Hans Oldewage
Sandia National Laboratories
505-845-7728
hdoldew@sandia.gov


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html






************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html