[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Detection of HEU, etc





Tom,



> ... Care to comment about available 

> spectrometers including your companies offering on that basis?



Not really. As soon as I have done enough so that my design outperforms

the top competitor design I consider the real job finished.



Dimiter



------------------------------------------------------

Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments



http://www.tgi-sci.com

------------------------------------------------------





> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:33:46 -0500

> From: Tom Hazlett <tomhaz@aol.com>

> To: Dimiter Popoff <didi@tgi-sci.com>

> CC: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> Subject: Re: Detection of HEU, etc

>

> Dimiter,

> Although your opinion is interesting,  I think that the key issue is how 

> these systems stand up to the ANSI N42.34 hand held radionuclide 

> identifier specification.   Care to comment about available 

> spectrometers including your companies offering on that basis?

> 

> Tom Hazlett

> XRF Corporation

> 

> 

> didi@tgi-sci.com wrote:

>

> >  I have not examined the details of their portable cooling system,

> > so I don't know how much of the resolution they have managed to preserve.

> > 

> >  As for fully-featured MCA and identification software on a portable

> > system, they all are bound to be either mickey-mouse class and portable

> > or need an additional PC - all with one exception.

> > 

> > 

> > Dimiter

> > 

> > 

> > 

> > ------------------------------------------------------

> > Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments

> > 

> > http://www.tgi-sci.com

> > ------------------------------------------------------

> > 

> > 

> > 

> > 

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > From: "Bob Shannon" <bobcat167@earthlink.net>

> > > To: "'Dimiter Popoff'" <didi@tgi-sci.com>,

> > >  <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> > > Subject: RE: Detection of HEU, etc

> > > Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:46:16 -0700

> > >

> > > I believe that Ortec has developed a portable gamma spectroscopy system that

> > > uses a Sterling cooler and runs by battery power. 

> > > 

> > >  

> > > 

> > > While I haven't personally had the opportunity to use the equipment in the

> > > field, I have seen it, lifted it and it is really 'hand-held' portable - and

> > > that includes the power source. I believe that it is a step toward

> > > addressing many of the practical limitations surrounding portable Germanium

> > > spectroscopy. From the reports and minimal data I have seen, the stability

> > > of the instrument appears to be excellent. I have not had a chance to look

> > > more closely at the nuclide identification software so I can't weigh in on

> > > that. 

> > > 

> > >  

> > > 

> > > Here are a some links to the Ortec website that provide some information.  

> > > 

> > >  

> > > 

> > > http://www.ortec-online.com/papers/wco0904.pdf

> > > 

> > > http://www.ortec-online.com/papers/detective_inmm04.pdf

> > > 

> > >  

> > > 

> > > There is a paper on the subject of materials detection using the

> > > instrumentation scheduled at the Midyear HP conference. (Session 2: Advances

> > > in Instrument Instrumentation, Materials Detection and Measurement; An

> > > Improved Handheld Radiosotope Identifier (RIID) for Both Locating and

> > > Identifying Radioactive Materials. R.M. Keyser, T.R. Twomey, D.L. Upp;

> > > ORTEC)

> > > 

> > >  

> > > 

> > >  

> > > 

> > > Bob Shannon

> > > 

> > > Project Chemist / Radiochemist

> > > 

> > > Kaiser Analytical Management Services

> > > 

> > > Tel: 303-432-1137

> > > 

> > > Fax: 720-889-2775

> > > 

> > >  

> > > 

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

> > > To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> > > From: Dimiter Popoff <didi@tgi-sci.com>

> > > Subject: Re: Detection of HEU, etc

> > > Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:15:58 +0200

> > > 

> > > 

> > > No matter how well trained people are they will need usable instruments.

> > > 

> > > The task takes more than the mickey-mouse GM or NaI devices which are

> > > currently deployed.

> > > 

> > > Ge detector based systems can do the job, although they cost more and there

> > > are tradeoffs to be made because of the cooling system (which better be

> > > LN2, or you endup with an expensive Peltier cooled device which may

> > > dangerously approach the NaI class).

> > >  I roughly estimate that a quad 35-50% Ge detector system will be about fine

> > > to inspect containers - such a thing would cost about $200k (at least

> > > I know I can deliver it at such price, I have heard of more expensive

> > > systems of the above mentioned mickey-mouse type being installed only

> > > to raise the question of how to actually do the job, but that's not a

> > > tech issue).

> > >  Of course, there is also a variety of Ge based mickey-mouse

> > > systems on offer - and under "development" at fancy labs ....

> > > 

> > > Dimiter

> > > 

> > > ------------------------------------------------------

> > > Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments

> > > 

> > > http://www.tgi-sci.com

> > > ------------------------------------------------------

> > > 

> > >

> > > > To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> > > > From: Brian Rees <brees@lanl.gov>

> > > > Subject: Detection of HEU, etc

> > > > Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:47:46 -0700

> > > > 

> > > > Folks,

> > > > 

> > > > Many instruments can detect HEU, the problem is that the signal may be 

> > > > small enough that it's difficult to discern from other sources, and that to 

> > > > avoid nuisance alarms many organizations turn the sensitivity on 

> > > > instruments down (make them less sensitive).  Of course, if you shield it, 

> > > > the problem is more complex.

> > > > OK, here's my soapbox...

> > > > That is why it is VITAL that appropriate training be provided to ANYBODY 

> > > > who gets an instrument.  People understand that their jobs are important, 

> > > > and everybody with a uniform or badge takes their responsibilities 

> > > > seriously, they WANT too do a good job, but they have to know "what's 

> > > > what".  An understanding of radiation, and radiation detection is not 

> > > > intuitive, and the debate over the potential hazard(s) of single mrems 

> > > > makes it difficult for someone who has plenty of other issues to consider 

> > > > during their "regular jobs" to do exactly what "we'd" like them to do when 

> > > > they encounter something radioactive.   Training them for 100% of what they 

> > > > may encounter, and exactly what to do 100% of the time is not 

> > > > realistic.  70%, 80%, 90% is debatable.

> > > > 

> > > > There are solutions.  While I'm not a big fan of DOE itself, the RAP 

> > > > program is an excellent avenue for responders to get help when they 

> > > > encounter radiation related issues.  The proper resources can be called 

> > > > upon, and assistance will be obtained.   Many States have excellent 

> > > > radiation programs, and provide response assistance as well.  Any response 

> > > > must consider the entire situation, and be graded for the situation.  As 

> > > > more people get and use radiation detectors, the response will get better, 

> > > > but we must ensure that people don't become dismissive or complacent.   So, 

> > > > if you are involved with responders and instruments, ensure they are 

> > > > appropriately trained so they will do the right things, 10 minutes isn't 

> > > > enough, 8 hours may be too much.

> > > > 

> > > > The risk from an RDD or the potential for a mushroom cloud can be debated, 

> > > > but these things will happen, and we must do the best we can as a community 

> > > > to help the public when it does.  As we've seen from Boston this month, the 

> > > > public (and the media) will be disproportionately concerned when the word 

> > > > "radioactive" is used.

> > > > 

> > > > (obviously) my own opinions, not those of my management or employment chain

> > > > 

> > > > Brian Rees

> > > >





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

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 can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/