Re: Co-60

["Kevin Wright" <kswusa@HOTMAIL.COM>]

Not necessarily.  If you have low-level activity; or mis-shaped peaks; or 

insensitive peak search settings; you could get one but not the other.  

Though both yield about the same, the 1173.2 is a little more efficient than 

the 1332.5.  Do a visual verification of the 1332.  You may need to count 

longer or adjust peak search criteria.



Kevin Wright





>From: AndrewsJP@AOL.COM

>Reply-To: AndrewsJP@AOL.COM

>To: dpharrison@AEP.COM, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

>Subject: Re: Co-60

>Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:02:17 EST

>

>In a message dated 11/29/2001 11:44:49 AM Eastern Standard Time,

>dpharrison@AEP.COM writes:

>

>

> >

> > I have a gamma spec report that identifies 1173-keV, but not 1332-keV.  

>If

> > it's Co-60, wouldn't I see both peaks?

> >

> > David Harrison

> > dpharrison@aep.com

> >

>

>This is a test, right?  Do we get any more information about the spectrum 

>or

>the sample? Are there any other peaks in the spectrum.  What kind of 

>detector

>is being used?  Is the peak intense?  Is your calibration correct?  What is

>the source of the radioactivity? Is it fission or activation products from 

>a

>reactor, or is it from some other source? Is the sample decayed or fresh?

>

>Yes, you should see the 1.33 peak from Co-60 if the 1.17 peak is present.  

>If

>it is truly absent and the other is truly present, then Co-60 is not there 

>is

>the proper analysis.

>





_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp



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

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.