[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fe-55

To: "radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Fe-55
From: William Lorenzen <LORENZEN_W@A1.TCH.HARVARD.EDU>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:31:17 EST
A1-Type: MAIL
Alternate-Recipient: prohibited
Hop-Count: 0
Importance: normal
In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970819133635.3647c836@manta.nosc.mil>
Mr-Received: by mta AREEL; Relayed; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:34:30 -0500 (EST)
Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:34:00 EST
Priority: normal
Ua-Content-Id: E2750ZWZHDOFSA
X400-Mts-Identifier: [;03439002807991/6683068@HUB]

I would not suggest having researchers switch from Fe-55 to Fe-59 just because 
it is easy to detect.  Fe-59 can have some exposure concerns from all the high 
energy beta and gamma radiation.

Our researchers use and prefer Fe-55 over Fe-59 any day!!!

Regards,
Regards,

William Lorenzen
Children's Hospital
Boston, MA

lorenzen_w@a1.tch.harvard.edu

References:
- Re: Fe-55
  - From: "baumbaug@nosc.mil" <baumbaug@nosc.mil>

Prev by Date: Radiation Work Permits
Next by Date: Re: Fe-55
Prev by thread: Re: Fe-55
Next by thread: Re: Fe-55
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread