[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re:: Dose rate constants -Reply -Reply
> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 12:12:12 -0600
> Reply-to: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> From: FRAMEP@orau.gov
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Re:: Dose rate constants -Reply -Reply
>
>
>
> >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.
>
>
Paul,
If you think that's bad, look in the back of the RHH, you'll see
that different researchers have measured different half lives for
the same radionuclide, even when there aren't competing modes of
decay, hmmm? And by the way, some regulators do realize that ball
park numbers are ok for radiation safety in certain cases. We just
don't acknoledge the existance of error bars.>
Russ
cmeyer@brc1.tdh.texas.gov
(512)834-6688