[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/