Re: FW: Error in Handbook?

[Charles Potter <capotte@sandia.gov>]

     ICRP-38 confirms this.  The third addition appears to also have the 
     incorrect version.
     
     Gus Potter
     Sandia National Laboratories
     Albuquerque, New Mexico
     (505) 844-2750
     capotte@sandia.gov


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: FW: Error in Handbook?
Author:  clementc@aecl.ca at hubsmtp
Date:    6/22/98 9:09 AM


Radsafers:
     
In a message last week, I mentioned an error in the uranium series shown 
in the "Health Physics and Radiological Health Handbook" but did not 
elaborate further.  I have since received requests to give a little more 
information to the group.
     
The version I have is the "Revised Edition" (c) 1992, edited by Bernard 
Shleien.  I have the addenda and errata sheet issued August 1994, but 
this error is not covered.
     
On page 283, there is a table which details the uranium decay series. 
The first part of the series printed is as follows:
     
U-238 -> Th-234 -> Pa-234m -> Pa-234 (99.87%) or PaIT-234 (0.13%) -> 
U-234 -> Th-230 -> ...
     
My understanding is that the series is actually:
     
U-238 -> Th-234 -> Pa-234m -> U-234 (99.87%)  or [ Pa-234 (0.13%) -> 
U-234 ] -> Th-230 -> ...
     
Another error on the same page is that 222Ra should read 222Rn, although 
I'd caught this one some time ago and is now covered in the errata 
sheet.
     
------------------------------------------------------------ 
Christopher H. Clement
Scientific Specialist / Radiation Protection Program Manager 
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
clementc@aecl.ca
     
     
> ----------
> From:      RadWizard@aol.com[SMTP:RadWizard@aol.com] 
> Sent:      June 19, 1998 10:10 PM
> To:      Clement, Christopher
> Subject:      Error in Handbook?
>
> Christopher -
>
> It would be instructive to point out exactly what the error in the 
> Handbook
> is, and in what edition of the Handbook.
> I'm sure many on RADSAFE would appreciate that. 
>
> Thanks.
>
> Gary Mansfield
> RADWIZARD@aol.com
>
> ------------------------
> Radsafers:
>
> Thanks everyone for your answers to my question.  My misunderstanding 
> is
> a result of an error in the uranium decay series in "The Health 
> Physics
> and Radiological Health Handbook" by Shleien.  For those of you 
> relying
> on this reference beware!  (There's little doubt in my mind that the 
> correct answer is 14 Bq.)
>