Re: rad outreach programs

["Ron L. Kathren" <rkathren@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>]

Jim --

What else is the ash, if not the soil?  Or the remains of the soil.  That 
nothwithstanding, I again refer you to the paper by Soldat et al. in 
Science and to and earlier paper by Fruchter et al., also in Science 
which should provide you with the data that you desire.  And,  I 
believe the Hanford environmental surveillance report for 1980 also 
contained much data.  In any event, the data are in fact out there.  
I also call your attention to the Ra-226 decay scheme, which, until 
Pb-210 is reached, are all short lived and would quickly decay away.

Ron Kathren
On 
Wed, 5 Oct 1994 JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com wrote:

> Ron Kathren wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > Re the Mt. St. Helens eruption:  National Geographic notwithstanding, the 
> > radioactivity concentration in the the Mt. St. Helens ash was about the 
> > same as in soil in the surrounding countryside.  There was much confusion 
> > and some erroneous (in some cases deliberate) statements by scientists.  
> > Suggest you look up the article by Soldat et al. in Science about 1982.
> > 
> > Ron Kathren
> > 
> > On Tue, 4 Oct 1994, Free Spirit wrote:
> 
> <snip> 
> 
> > >       You might try telling them about current unusual sources of
> radiation. > > 
> 
> > >       1/ Mt St Helens emitted something like 1000 times the radiation of
> > >          three mile island. I seem to remember an issue of National
> > >          Geographics that mentioned that.
> > > 
> 
> It doesn't seem relevant that the ash=soil if the issue is releases.
> Conversely, 
> since the ash=soil, then we can assume that the radium/radon/progeny that 
> would have been born and died below about 18 inches of the soil/rock surface 
>  was ALL discharged into the atmosphere! (and then the raw ash dispersed 
> 
> on the ground). This is a LARGE net discharge to the biosphere above routine 
>  background discharge rates (only 1000 times the TMI releases?) 
> 
> 
> What then collected on the ground covered what was below, so the top 18
> inches 
> was then still the source of radon/progeny releases to the atmosphere. Was
> the 
> release of radium/radon/progeny by this material any greater or lesser than
> the covered soils, especially with subsequent rain and weathering before
> plant life 
> returned? Does any one have any data? 
> 
> Is there 50,000 Ci of radon/progeny in a cubic mile? How many cubic miles?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Regards, Jim Muckerheide 
> 
> 
> 
> concentrations, 
>