Re: Interesting News Release

[fegallag@uci.edu (Frank E. Gallagher, III)]

Jim Muckerheide wrote:

>In the context of the article, it is a good use of the term, although
>confusing because it was stated in reverse from the intended perspective being 
>communicated. 
>The artcle reports the lab saying in effect:  "We are measuring 1 to 10 uBq,
>compared to 200-300 million uBq during Chernobyl." 

I agree with Jim.  For nontechnical readers, using uBq for both measurements
probably makes sense.  Mixing units (even prefixes) would be very confusing
to the average person.  Of course, it would look like a lot less activity if
it read "We are measuring 0.000001 to 0.00001 Bq, compared to 200-300 Bq
during Chernobyl." 

To put this in perspective for U.S. operational health physics types like
me, who are grasping the old traditional units with our last broken
fingernails, 10 uBq is equivalent to about 300 aCi or 6 E -4 dpm.  Any way
you put it, this is a very, very tiny amount of activity.
 

*******************************************************************
Frank E. Gallagher, III, CHP            
Manager, Radiation Protection           
  and Radiation Safety Officer
Environmental Health & Safety Office    Phone:  (714) 824-6904
University of California                Fax:    (714) 824-8539
Irvine, CA   92717-2725                 E-mail: fegallag@uci.edu
*******************************************************************