Re:: Dose rate constants -Reply -Reply

[FRAMEP@ORAU.GOV]

>I have been using the c. 1970 Rad. Health Handbook for a long time
>now. Are there any other gaping wounds in it that I should be aware
>of?

>Roman Fail

Roman, esteemed colleague: In general, the data in the old RHH is
okay. Besides, real radiation protection only requires ballpark
numbers (that might not be the position of regulatory agencies
however). I don't have a long list of errors in the thing. However,
when I've  gone to other sources for backup info or calculated
something myself, the RHH has been wrong far too often. I don't feel
comfortable with it. 

Never use it for half life info. For half lives I go the the latest
chart of the nuclides. To get another example for you I thought I'd
check the half lives of Eu-152, 154 and 155 in the old RHH. Even
recent publications will show up to a 5% variation in their numbers.
My 1970 RHH lists the half lives as 12.7, 16 and 1.811 years
respectvely. My recent chart of the nuclides has them as  13.48, 8.59
and 4.71 years respectively. Those kinds of errors are scary.

Regards,

Paul
It might be cold here, and Venice beach is not on my weekend list of
things to do, but I can still buy a sixpack of Anchor Steam at the
grocery store and listen to the Beach Boys.