RE: Contaminated uranium in the news again

[Sonter Mark <sonterm@EPA.NSW.GOV.AU>]

Another way to assess the triviality of the Pu contamination is to consider

the respective ALIs: they are really fairly similar (as indeed for most

alpha emitters). For the Pu to represent a genuine problem, at the

contamination levels quoted, you would have to have a Pu ALI that was a very

tiny fraction of a Bq......



Mark Sonter 



	-----Original Message-----

	From:	Bernard L Cohen [SMTP:blc+@PITT.EDU]

	Sent:	Thursday, 28 June 2001 1:52

	To:	Raymond A. Hoover

	Cc:	laradcon@HOTMAIL.COM; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

	Subject:	Re: Contaminated uranium in the news again





	On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Raymond A. Hoover wrote:



	> I just finished a review of some of the papers referenced in the

document.



	> The levels of contamination were on the order of ppb for Pu and

Np, and 



		--Roughly, the doses from a given mass of Pu and U is

inversely

	proportional to their half lives, 4,500,000,000 / 25,000, or

180,000. Thus

	1 part per billion of Pu would increase the dose by only 0.02%. This

is

	truly negligible.



	

************************************************************************

	You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe,

	send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text

"unsubscribe

	radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject

line.

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.