Re: rad outreach programs

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Ron Kathren writes,

> Jim --
> 
> What else is the ash, if not the soil?  Or the remains of the soil.  

I agree. As below, that has little to do with the radioactivity releases in
the event! Other than confirming the sources. 

>That 
> nothwithstanding, 

Again, what's "notwithstanding"? I don't understand what's relevant about
that fact. 

>..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 

I vaguely remember the Soldat article (the fact, not the contents). It's
probably in a box upstairs :-) 

I'm not so curious about the data as my confusion about the point.
It seemed that you didn't see the massive environmental release of
radioactivity from Mt. St. Helens as relevant to comparisons with other
radioactivity releases. The idea of having to satisfy regulations about the
release of the volatile fraction to the atmosphere from opening a vial of
I-131, while dismissing as innocuous the massive release of natural
radioactivity was the issue. (Of course you first have to get past the point 
that people _drink_ the vial!? millions of people, with no adverse
consequences!? At 10s of R thyroid, several to 10R whole body!  :-)  I
probably misunderstood the point being made!? But you didn't respond to my
specifics below. You can't mean that there was not a massive environmental
release, so I guess I'm confused. 

> believe the Hanford environmental surveillance report for 1980 also 
> contained much data.  In any event, the data are in fact out there.  

The data are "out there", but its the interpretation that's missing.

> 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.

Right. Say about 4 days. Why don't we say to the regulators that I-131 is 5
days and would quickly decay away! And with the Ra/Rn decay scheme where
each decay is by about 4 alphas and 2 betas. On the other hand if we don't
care because the release is short-lived, the Pb-210 product is long-lived
(what is the long-lived I-131 product?). 

[Another thought: The Pb-210 is _preferentially_ deposited on the ground
surface since the massive radium/noble gas release inventory did not settle
with the ash. The noble gas remained airborne and settled later, on the
surface!? Has anyone done a later assessment? Since Pb-210-Po-210 is the
only other major contributor to soft tissue and bone doses, nearly equal to
K-40, a high ground surface concentration, less bound than in normal soil
conditions (from radon that never made it out of the ground), it is
conceivable that such an inventory could escalate local body burdens (with a 
half life of about 20 years), and because of its dose significance (say
normally about 40% of total internal tissue/bone dose) an increase in burden 
would be very dose-significant?!] 

> Ron Kathren

Note below:
<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.  

What erroneous statements? And what they imply about the releases and/or
consequences? 

<snip> 

> > It doesn't seem relevant that the ash=soil if the issue is releases.

It still doesn't, though you say this again above!??

> > 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?) 

And Pb-210 distributed on top of the ash?!
 
> > 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 the ash any greater or lesser than
> > the covered soils, especially with subsequent rain and weathering > >
before plant life 
> > returned? 

What does Soldat say? Anything about radionuclide retention differences in
ash vs. original surface soil?  

> > Is there 50,000 Ci of radon/progeny in a cubic mile? How many cubic
miles? 

Does Soldat have a total?
 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > Regards, Jim Muckerheide 

And again. Jim