RE: human-human K-40 dose- Reduction due to shielding of

["Lamothe, Emelie" <lamothee@aecl.ca>]

What a boring bunch we are!  (big grin!)

Reminds me of the scientists/mathematicians who, via detailed calculations,
conclude they will never reach their date for a kiss by halving the distance
between them every 10 sec.  The engineers will conclude that, for all
intends of purposes, they will be close enough to accomplish the task.

So calculate away.  As for me, rather than worry about dose calculation,
dose avoidance and shielding with black, lead-lined lace teddies (the kind
you wear) or water beds, I'll just enjoy the thought of a warm body sharing
the bed.  I've heard it said that radiation can generate heat, especially on
a cold, wet day.  (Even bigger grin!)

And it's not even Friday!  Oh well.

Definitely not speaking for anyone but me, 
Cheers (before Melissa reprimands me).

Emelie Lamothe
lamothee@aecl.ca

> ----------
> From: 	Heinmiller, Bruce[SMTP:heinmillerb@aecl.ca]
> Reply To: 	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: 	Wednesday, December 08, 1999 3:45 PM
> To: 	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: 	RE: human-human K-40 dose- Reduction due to shielding of
> 
> The water was a Monte Carlo expediency, but the base case is sleeping
> alone
> on the same bed, so it's not relevant to the problem modeled.
> 
> Someone mentioned the second person acting as a shield from the natural
> radiation background, which is a valid question.  The code was run to
> demonstrate an upper bound and tentative average annual dose from a
> spouse's
> K-40 alone, so this was not considered.  My feeling is that the shielding
> effect is small for a typical source-target distance.  Terrestrial
> radiation
> and that from building materials would be the thing to look at.  I would
> think a crude first estimate of the dose spared could be made from, say,
> taking the average annual terrestrial dose (and assume house shielding is
> offset by activity in building materials, that is to say I haven't the
> slightest idea), times 8/24, times an estimate of the fraction of the
> relevant space eclipsed, divided by about 2 for transmission, and ignore
> an
> add-back-in for the second person as a source of scatter.  Somebody want
> to
> run (or correct) those numbers?
> 
> I believe shielding from cosmic rays can safely be ignored.  The muon flux
> goes roughly as the square of the cosine of the angle from vertical, but
> let's not go there.  Besides, most of the cosmic-ray dose is from muons
> with
> prodigious energies, and they don't stop for anybody.
> 
> Bruce Heinmiller CHP
> heinmillerb@aecl.ca
> 
> > ----------
> > From: 	Zack Clayton[SMTP:zack.clayton@epa.state.oh.us]
> > Reply To: 	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> > Sent: 	Wednesday, December 08, 1999 1:33 PM
> > To: 	Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: 	RE: human-human K-40 dose- Reduction due to shielding of
> > 
> > I can't help myself.  Has anyone floated an estimate of shielding by
> > sleeping on a water bed?  
> > 
> > I don't think this would be in the FAQ. 
> > 
> > Zack Clayton
> > Ohio EPA - DERR
> > email:  zack.clayton@epa.state.oh.us
> > voice:  614-644-3066
> > fax:        614-460-8249
> > 
> > ************************************************************************
> > The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> > information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> > 
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> 
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html