RE: British Radioactive Pollution

[Simon "M." Jerome <smj1@npl.co.uk>]

Good morning everyone,

As far as I know, this is what was done;

>1. What method was used to measure the activity of Tc-99 in that
>seaweed... ? In ICRP38 no gamma/X-ray is listed for this isotope and 
the
>average beta- energy is 101 keV and IMHO this is not easy.

They used radiochemical analysis.

>2. Why there are no other isotopes reported? 

There probably are other radionuclides present, but seaweed tends to 
concentrate Technetium and Ruthenium.

>3.Should not there be also another fission products with reasonable
>half-life and/or "somehow similar" chemical properties?

The following nuclides have half lives of >100 years and a ß(max) <300 
keV;

Ni-63, Rb-87, I-129. It is fairly easy to chemically resolve Nickel, 
Rubidium, Technetium and Iodine. 

>Thx.
>  
>
>Miroslav Lieskovský
>Health Physicist
>Point Lepreau G. S., 
>NB POWER, NB, Canada

>************************************************************************
>***************************
>bus.: 	(506) 659 7421	mlieskovsky@nbpower.com
>res.: 	(506) 636 7629	miroslav@nbnet.nb.ca

>************************************************************************
>**************************
>P.S.: ...a clueless lobotomized nuke! Yep, is there any better
>combination? 8^)
>

The increase in discharge limits were probably justified on the grounds 
of the low radiotoxicity of Tc-99. I've got no evidence to hand to back 
this up, but the UK NRPB is probably a good starting point 
(http:\\www.nrpb.org.uk/).


Simon