Re: Elevated Gross Beta Readings

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Franz,

Franz Schoenhofer wrote:
> 
> At 08:09 23.03.2000 -0600, you wrote:
> >Franz, shame on you for your personal attacks on Noel!
> 
> Sorry, I am stubborn and I am not ashamed at all. Just at the contrary I
> still adhere to my heretic thoughts. Hopefully I will not be burnt at the
> stake like other heretics several centuries ago!

Perhaps Cohen being burned by BEIR VI/Lubin et al., or Luckey as a premiere
research biologist of his era documenting the enormous data that contradicts
the LNT (both biology and epidemiology data that disprove the LNT, and the
falsified data that are claimed to support the LNT), are more applicable
examples :-)  With some people with matches on this list! 

And of course you are also right on both Tokaimura and the error in using
gross measurements as meaningful, and should also stick with your convictions!
:-)

Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================

> >Although maybe not attributable to Tokaimura
> 
> I have not questioned the fact that elevated gross-beta measurements might
> have been recorded, I exactly protested against the link of these
> measurements to Tokaimura - and hardly anybody could deny, that such a link
> cannot exist. So why should I be ashamed?
> 
> Gross beta or gross alpha or gross beta/alpha measurements could only be
> used as an indicator - of not only limited, but of no use for
> interpretation. Any increase has to be checked by further investigations
> using gamma-spectrometry and if necessary radiochemical analysis for beta-
> and alpha-emitting radionuclides.
> 
> That the gross beta measurement of aerosols is subject to fluctuations is
> nothing new - this occurs even in times when no accident occurs in
> Tokaimura and - forgive me - in Thailand. It is subject to diurnal
> variations and even more seasonal variations. Variations of an order of
> magnitude or even more within a few days are absolute normal. The cause is
> always variations of natural radionuclide concentrations like that of radon
> daughter products during inversion layers, winds blowing etc. You can only
> get a mean value, when you have deviations from that.
> 
> I am very proud that I have been able to stop in the early eighties the use
> of gross beta measurements of aerosols in Austria, replacing it with
> routineously sampled aerosols with high volume samplers and high
> resolutions gamma-spectrometry. I did not see any use in maintaining two
> different systems of measurement. This might be of course a different
> situation, when there is the question of nuclear power plant surveillance.
> Nevertheless in NPP's there should be done a nuclides specific measurement
> even in these cases in order to be able to demonstrate the natural origin
> of the increased gross-beta value.
> 
> I cannot imagine, what difficulties we would have had in Austria, if
> aerosol contamination would have been evaluated by gross-beta-measurements
> during the time of the Chernobyl accident. There is a clear difference
> between the impact referring to doses of for instance I-131 and Cs-137
> regarding wide spread contamination and future contamination of food
> originating from early fallout.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Franz
> 
> Franz Schoenhofer
> Habicherg. 31/7
> A-1160 Vienna
> Austria
> Tel.: +43-1-495 53 08
> Fax.: same number
> mobile phone: +43-664-338 0 333
> e-mail: schoenho@via.at
> 
> Office:
> Hofrat Dr. Franz Schoenhofer
> Bundeskanzleramt (Federal Chancellery), VI/8
> Radetzkystr. 2
> A-1031 Vienna
> AUSTRIA
> 
> phone: -43-1-71172-4458
> fax: -43-1-7122331
> 
> ************************************************************************
> 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