RE: CS-137 in the Black Sea Salt. RE(2): Dateline NBC TMI story A

[Brian Rees <brees@LANL.GOV>]

Let's see, Cs-137 is a fission product, U.S. submarines did not operate for 

long with fuel element failures, and used PWRs.



What's more, it's kinda hard for U.S. submarines to get into the Black 

Sea!  Although there may be some pretty amazing stories to hear from 

Submarine Sailors if you're buying the drinks!



(Obviously) my own personal opinions.



Brian Rees

brees@lanl.gov









At 09:35 AM 8/22/2001 -0400, you wrote:

>  Food for thought:  How much of that Cs-137 came from U.S. submarine

>discharges?  If anyone says, "None", they are probably kidding themselves.

>

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Emil Murat

>To: radsafe

>Cc: tgi@cit.bg

>Sent: 8/22/01 7:02 AM

>Subject: CS-137 in the Black Sea Salt. RE(2): Dateline NBC TMI story A

>

>Dimiter,

>

>

>You are right, about K-40 and also it has higher

>gamma energy than Cs-137.

>

>To me, it is surprising that some people continue

>"I belive ONLY when my instrument's needle move

>up than I say here is radiation"

>

>

>"Chernobyl Plant instruments

>during/after the accident showed  "ZEROs"...

>

>Why?

>Because there was no radiation?

>No.

>Because

>Nobody was expecting so high levels that

>instruments counting circuitry elements

>saturated/piled up.

>As far as I am concern there could be simply

>burned out electronics, aspecially with some

>newer computer chip technology stuff.

>

>

>I am surprised that such thing as  transport of

>Cs-137 needs to be proved with the ABSOLUTE

>accuracy.

>

>1. Obviously, there are cases when we CAN say

>that if Cs-137 was in the reactor's fall out and

>water runs out into the Sea => Cs-137 SHELL be in

>the Sea water => Sea salt

>

>WHY???

>

>BECAUSE

>

>2. There is the Universal LAW of conservation of

>MATTER  and it is stating that MATTER can not

>vanish but only can change its form.

>

>I have not heard of any Black Sea's regional

>relativistic phenomenas other than Isotopic

>spontaneous decay.

>So if Cs-137 went in there then it is in the Sea

>water => Sea Salt (period)

>

>It is probably, impossible to see any Cs-134

>after so many years of decaying with such low

>initial concentrations because of the huge

>dilution, to determine the exact Cesium origin.

>

>

>3. Concentrations of Cs-137 should be negligible

>=> from the health hazard side it does NOT MATTER

>how low was LLD/MDA of your spectrometer. NOBODY

>CAN dink/eat so much of that water/salt to get

>exposed to CS-137 to the "levels of health

>concern" Nor to get any considerable level of

>external exposure.

>

>4. LLD will be the most important part if we are

>writing the reports....:-)

>

>For the quality analysis, who cares?

>I too played with many instruments, for many

>years and I also do not remember all LLD's and

>MDA's.

>

>5. For me, the instrument is not as important as

>user which used it.

>We all can have the best instruments in our

>possession but users who are just looking into

>the numbers can do not much if they see no big

>picture.

>I am more interested in the big picture, so I may

>forget small details.

>Or may be I am becoming just too old? :-)

>

>6. Of course, as professionals, we are ALWAYS???

>need to watch out for our selves for scenarios

>like "how to defend our data or how to attack the

>opponent" :-)

>

>But sometimes it becomes too silly..fellas.

>We are not on the symposium here, right?

>It is a discussion list, only.

>

>

>7. You are right if World Bank/IAEA/NATO/EU or

>other national organization have money for

>research of the Cs-137 in the Black Sea's Salt,

>you could do that work for them, since, you live

>there and know the area, know equipment and have

>the expertise.

>So if some people have doubts about the Cs-137

>origin, then they need to help you to get a grand

>money for the project.

>

>But I still doubt that Cs-134 could be seeing.

>May be transuranics could show something?

>Who knows...

>

>So who gonna pay to satisfy peoples curiosity?

>

>Happy week to everyone,

>

>Emil.

>

>

>

>Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 1:23:51 +0300

>From: Dimiter Popoff <tgi@cit.bg>

>Subject: Re: RE(2): Dateline NBC TMI story A

>different evaluation

>

>Franz,

>

> >Where is the prove? Is there really a salt

>industry on the Black Sea?

>

>  No proof. Did I claim any?

>  There is a salt industry on the Black Sea - the

>main one around.

>I expect my playing experiment can be easily

>repeated - probably with the

>very same results - by anyone interested (which I

>

>was not at the time when

>I conducted it). As I said, I was just playing

>around with a detector. I

>am only a high-tech guru designing and

>programming the electronics which

>people use to measure stuff like that.

>

> >... You did not determine the Cs-137

>quantitatively.

>

>No, I did not. I just had no source to make

>efficiency calibration for it at

>the moment, nor did I want to do it.

>

> > You had no shielding around your detector!!!!!

>

>This fact gives significant quantitative

>information in the given context

>to any user of spectroscopy equipment I know.

>Sorry you missed it.

>

> >... Whereever you do any gamma-measurements in

>the field you will find

> >Cs-137 in the background, whether you measure

>salt or anything else.

>

>Oh the 137Cs peak was not there with the

>K-enriched salt, as I mentioned.

>And it was there allright when I put the

>Bulgarian salt bag, which

>comes with a 95% (my estimate) probability from

>the Black Sea.

>

> >... Do you want to say, that Black Sea Salt -

>though

> >you do not even know, whether you measured some

>- contains Chernobyl Cs-137?

>

>I want to say what I already said - the Black Sea

>

>may well contain Chernobyl

>137Cs. I am not interested in further accuracy or

>

>proof. If anybody is, I would

>be glad to assist in any way I can.

>

> >I really do not understand what your message is!

>

>I hope I made it a little clearer for you now. We

>

>all go after the absolute

>truth, and eventually we learn that we are

>unlikely to seek it. However,

>we work with plenty of information of no absolute

>

>certainty - this is how

>we seem to be designed and this is what we

>certainly have to do because

>of so much knowledge we miss. Therefore, I

>considered it apropriate

>to share this experience of mine to the list.

>One thing I am sure about is that while I may

>have posted some off-topic

>messages there are others who have posted

>definitely a lot more of them.

>

>Regards,

>

>Dimiter

>

>

>__________________________________________________

>Do You Yahoo!?

>Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger

>http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

>************************************************************************

>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.