Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu how hot is clean?

Author Topic: how hot is clean?  (Read 160311 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

atomicarcheologist

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #75 on: May 31, 2005, 06:28 »
and how does the concept of -dpm's fit into this?....as in 167gcpm(measured)-240cpm(bkg) /15%(eff)= -487 dpm
 ::)

Why, I believe that concept would enter into this via "averaging".

atomicarcheologist

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #76 on: May 31, 2005, 06:34 »
Or better stated how hot in R an Hour for a tank to start crossing this fallout zone so that it is clean enough not to exceed the mission limit of 150 R Dose?

How about troops?   How hot is clean?

You are a nuclear target analyst, You Advise Generals on how close to drop nuclear weapons to your own troops.  You have three criteria, 1 negligible risk which means slight risk to your troops, 2. Moderate Risk some risk to your troops and 3. emergency risk which means you may have to wipe them all out.  You are drinking coffee with the General staff about 15 miles from ground zero, Your 10,000 troops are about to be overrun by 100,000 troops.  You make the call!!  How hot is clean??

Your Sub Base in the USA is being over run by fanatics, They get a hold of some nuclear subs with nuclear weapons and head out to sea.  What is the smallest nuclear weapon you can drop on your homeland?  How hot is clean?  1KT 100 KT 1Megaton?
As a nuclear target analyst, I would advise the coffee drinking General staff to utilize the weapon that would give a (3) to the overrun attempt troops, while maintaining a level (1) for our troops. 
In regard to the Sub Base scenario, I wouldn't drop any weapon on the homeland, but I would nuke the sea in the closest proximity achievable to the captured sub.  Since there were no other limitiations, my version of this scenario is an East coast base with a prevailing wind from the west.

atomicarcheologist

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #77 on: May 31, 2005, 06:38 »
You see a Mushroom cloud with the wind blowing in your face.  A few minutes later your tactical dosimeters purple viles all turn gold.  You start blowing chunks, does 5K 15K matter?

Your in a Helicopter flying across a fallout zone doing air to ground coorelation factors and the fallout is reading 100 R on the ground. When do you start letting your tanks drive through this?  how about infantry walking through this. hint,  There is a 7 10 rule for fallout which means for every 7 hours your fallout decays by a factor of 10,  Tanks provide shielding of 90 percent, troops no shielding,  troops walk at 4 miles an hour, tanks go at 45 miles an hour, the  fallout zone is 10 miles across, also as you enter the fallout zone the fallout is decaying as you walk or drive.  Also your troops tactical dosimeter is already reading 50 R.  You only allowed another 100 R  to complete your mission for a total does of 150 R. The tank is obvious, What about the troops??
First part; I wouldn't worry about 5K or 15K while chunk heaving, unless, of course, the units were R/hr.  Even then, my worry would not consume much of my thought process.
second part;  I figure the tanks go now, the troops move out in 5 hours and have a received dose of ~126 R.  This is making the assumption that there is a shielding wall available for a 100% dose reduction that the troops are able to await command to move out.

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #78 on: Jun 01, 2005, 06:47 »
hmm I think the DQOs were inadequate if you completed the FSS and it failed criteria and the surveys were allowed to stand without remediation. Seems like the developers of the DQOs were not well versed in this process. Surely they didnt use the WRS if you did ya gets what ya wanted.  Also, sounds like the characterization was inadequate. Take for example ETTP, the whole project was based on 3 or 4 swipes and characterization of 1/100 of the structure.  The contractor that was assigned FSS did rather well in this case. The other contractor that belived what the client belived in lost cedibility and tons of money.  Aint that da truth Shonaktoys???

As for leaving a hot spot.. shame on the contractor..simple areas like a hot spot can be remediated and must be considered in DQO design.

As for challenging a regulator.. is that the voice of inexperience????  You correct regulators, you inform regulators, you educate regulators, you agree with regulators and you listen to regulators-never, never challenge regulators.. If you have to do that, your DQOs were poorly designed to begin with.. (low bid again)
« Last Edit: Jun 01, 2005, 06:59 by alphadude »

atomicarcheologist

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #79 on: Jun 01, 2005, 06:24 »
hmm I think the DQOs were inadequate if you completed the FSS and it failed criteria and the surveys were allowed to stand without remediation. Seems like the developers of the DQOs were not well versed in this process. Surely they didnt use the WRS if you did ya gets what ya wanted.  Also, sounds like the characterization was inadequate. Take for example ETTP, the whole project was based on 3 or 4 swipes and characterization of 1/100 of the structure.  The contractor that was assigned FSS did rather well in this case. The other contractor that belived what the client belived in lost cedibility and tons of money.  Aint that da truth Shonaktoys???

As for leaving a hot spot.. shame on the contractor..simple areas like a hot spot can be remediated and must be considered in DQO design.

As for challenging a regulator.. is that the voice of inexperience????  You correct regulators, you inform regulators, you educate regulators, you agree with regulators and you listen to regulators-never, never challenge regulators.. If you have to do that, your DQOs were poorly designed to begin with.. (low bid again)
Oh, my!  I thought I had provided enough information for you to play.  Obviously, not.  Let me paint a broader picture for those who are imagery challenged.
Those with whom I toil, took over this disaster at the end of the current phase.  The previous contractor had gone bankrupt and had to get remove all corporate ties to the site.  The bankruptcy details are extremely messy, but the kernal was that they had become spread too thin domestically what with power plants, DOE, DOD, and EPA sites, and got tied up with some things in the fledgling E.U.  Although that wasn't bad enough, they had some mega bribes to pay to get some of their people out of areas in the Middle East that will remain nameless in order to prevent this thread from being placed in the political forum areas of this website where only the wealthy and well connected may play.  Anyway, the work had been almost all completed, with only this final spot left.  The Project Manager, Mr. Yurra Peon, looked at the area in question (please refer to the origin so I don't bore those who read and remember) and called the RSO in to see what could be done.  The RSO, a Ms. Betta Raye, thought at first it could be removed.  However, to cover her derriere, she contacted the local structural engineer, a Mr. Iman Ibeem.  When he examined the area, he said it would have grave consequences to the building to continue removal operations any further.  By the way, did I mention that this is a National Historic Landmark?  I'm sorry, it didn't seem necessary at the time.  I hope I have now given enough information.

RE: the NRC representative challenge.  Perhaps I miswrote.  I meant that I would engage him in conversation directed to his consideration of future farming in the region and whether he would let his family and their families dine on the consumables produced there.
« Last Edit: Jun 03, 2005, 12:52 by Atomic Archeologist »

Shonkatoys

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #80 on: Jun 01, 2005, 10:39 »
AlphaDude you were right!! They are going to need a new rad engineer at ETTP, you need to ask them to come back so you can gloth!!

Now back to Hormesis, I checked out the Quack Cures Renhack posted a few posts up,  The Gram Maze Uranium Comforter, Just a few micro R an hour over back ground probably not enough over background for hormetic effect. need to Jam some more uranium in it to crank the comforter to 100 Micro R an hour or more. Maybe we can have volunteers to try different dosages for the comforter to see which is most hormetic. But how to wash this?

The Radium Suppositories in quack cures looked like the 1930's Viagra and states so>  Wait honey While I Put My Special Medicine in :o.  I wonder if you have to wait until they are fully melted and what happens when you put in 2?

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #81 on: Jun 02, 2005, 06:44 »
Shonka toys- put some mama carmen sauce on that thang and it will spit in yer eye!  ;D 

halflifer

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #82 on: Jun 02, 2005, 07:11 »
Why, I believe that concept would enter into this via "averaging".
but how do you average something that doesn't exist?

atomicarcheologist

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #83 on: Jun 03, 2005, 12:51 »
but how do you average something that doesn't exist?

Welcome to the world of statistics and analysis.  The concept of "-dpm's" does exist.  After all, you measured it, correct?  Simply because a value is less than the background value, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  It simply means that it is a different value.  Let me explain it this way.  When you run a background for an instrument that will be used in a survey which will be of a reportable nature, ala Final Status Survey, it is customary to run a background count time of ten times the time to be used for the counting during the survey, then average for a one minute count rate to be recorded as "background".  Since survey counts are of a one minute duration, therefore the background count rate is to be run for ten minutes.  During that ten minute span, there are ten one minute segments which integrate during the time frame.  If you were to separate the segments and look at the individual counts, you would notice they do not equal the background count rate, some would be greater than and others less.  So if during your survey you wind up with a count rate that is less than the background count rate used for the day, it is a normal counting function for that instrument.  You must record this count rate in order to maintain statistical accuracy of the survey.  Using "less than background", "zero dpm", "below detectable limits" all throw the survey into question. 

atomicarcheologist

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #84 on: Jun 03, 2005, 12:56 »
I'm sorry that I haven't been out to play for a couple of days.  The phone's been busy and soon I will be too. 

For the guys at the Cingo de Madre Day; you were right and the checks' are in the mail.  I've got to go, see you on the other side of Piratininga Lake.

Shonkatoys

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #85 on: Jun 03, 2005, 01:58 »
Atomic Archeologist, good answers to the questions.  In the troop over run scenario, I think I was a little harsh.  I believe I would give a coded strikewarn message that the  nuke is coming in 90 minutes. The troops can set up hasty mine fields to slow down the bad guys, while they high tail it out of there.  After the first nuke, I would use some mini nukes to mop up any chasers!! LOL if any!!!

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5750
  • Total likes: 185
  • Karma: 2641
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #86 on: Jun 03, 2005, 03:45 »
Younz havta prove that tha place won't ever be used for agriculture.  Try ta get a regulator to sign off on dat.

"younz?"  eye gotta getta pronunseeation guide to you!  yinz're starting to loose yer grip on proper ainglish.  i'll git ina snail this weekenn.  yinz expats phrum da burgh knead two be brought back too earth every now 'n then.

bttt (back to the thread).... iffen eyem ina middle of a freaken city, why do i gotta prove it won't be used fer agriculture?  eye mean, it'd be easy, just bring ina remax rep 'n have him splain the cost differential of land fer farming 'n land fer occupancy.  butt why don't they just realize where ya are 'n what ya got 'n let it go?
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

raymcginnis

  • Guest

halflifer

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #88 on: Jun 05, 2005, 11:00 »
Welcome to the world of statistics and analysis.  The concept of "-dpm's" does exist.  After all, you measured it, correct?  Simply because a value is less than the background value, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  It simply means that it is a different value.  Let me explain it this way.  When you run a background for an instrument that will be used in a survey which will be of a reportable nature, ala Final Status Survey, it is customary to run a background count time of ten times the time to be used for the counting during the survey, then average for a one minute count rate to be recorded as "background".  Since survey counts are of a one minute duration, therefore the background count rate is to be run for ten minutes.  During that ten minute span, there are ten one minute segments which integrate during the time frame.  If you were to separate the segments and look at the individual counts, you would notice they do not equal the background count rate, some would be greater than and others less.  So if during your survey you wind up with a count rate that is less than the background count rate used for the day, it is a normal counting function for that instrument.  You must record this count rate in order to maintain statistical accuracy of the survey.  Using "less than background", "zero dpm", "below detectable limits" all throw the survey into question. 
good answer, but that's not the way they had us do it. a bkg was 'assigned' to the instruments (all the instruments of the same model) based on the material (steel, concrete, transite walls, etc.). this did not change on a day to day basis....in fact, the only time it changed was in the middle of the project when they changed all of the instrument eff.'s but didn't change the backgrounds....the net result being an increase in the activity 'assigned' to 'background'.  we were told by the largedollarpeopleintheaircond itionedtrailer that the backgrounds were based on the amount of NORM  that is present in the building material (the NORM norm?), which seemed to change in the middle of the project  :o.    I disagree with your contention that conventional practice of using the MDA value for those counts showing less than MDA (or <Bkg) would reduce the statistical validity of the survey. In fact, entering values that you cannot possibly measure with accuracy, or which don't really exist (such as - dpm's) artificially biases the evaluation to the low side.

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #89 on: Jun 06, 2005, 07:15 »
great reply, when you are in those regions of "below bkg or less than mda" using those values will ad "mush" to statistical values-mda should be used or bkg. only those values have been researched, reported, and are valid. the use of non-valid numbers is not a practice that should be applied to a stat analysis.  we have used the two sigma rule for positive indications to off set some of this mush region numbers- when values are near the reported mdc and greater than 2 sigma-will use those values as a positive bias however slight. (its part of informing the regulator that we are the good guys.) we know there is something there, maybe.

make sure you have a lab with valid and sound techniques,

raymcginnis

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #90 on: Jun 06, 2005, 09:11 »
This is the best thread that I have ever been a party to.  I'm glad that it is still alive.  I can feel everyone's pain on this subject.  I just have one question.  If natural soil and cosmic radiation are above e-6 risk levels, before man intervened, how is it possible to clean up a site to below e-6 levels?  I think that it is impossible! 

I suppose if you spent millions of dollars and had your lab count each sample for months, it could be achieved.

But that goes against the ALARA princple.  The people in Southern California need to focus on the smog that they are breathing, not the tiny amount of radioactivity that is miles away from them anyway.

I have done the calculations to prove that if you built a house here, planted tomatoes, built a pond, ate fish from the pond, you would be at higher risk just from driving you car to buy new seed than you would from living on a former radioactive site.

The protestors, who have no idea how to calculate this risk, have a greater voice than is deserverd.  That is my two cents for today.  Keep this thread spinning.  I love all of your input!  This is a fun subject!

I am a happy participant!

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #91 on: Jun 06, 2005, 10:08 »
I guess thats when WRS comes in handy

raymcginnis

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #92 on: Jun 06, 2005, 10:26 »
alphadude,

Yes WRS does come in handy, but the statistical data from the few samples that you put through WRS still are dependant on your 100% scan.  If you can't meet the scan MDC for your 100% scan survey, because of your natural background, you have trouble.  We have natural thorium in the rocks here.  It causes headaches. 

There is no way for us to prove e-6 levels here because of that.  That is why we use ALARA and try to demonstrate that we try to get it all.  We really do that.

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5750
  • Total likes: 185
  • Karma: 2641
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #93 on: Jun 06, 2005, 06:11 »
In fact, entering values that you cannot possibly measure with accuracy, or which don't really exist (such as - dpm's) artificially biases the evaluation to the low side.

'n yz think dat giving a false numerical value doesn't artificially biase the evaluation to the high side?  yinz had better show da math on dis won!
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

halflifer

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #94 on: Jun 07, 2005, 07:14 »
'n yz think dat giving a false numerical value doesn't artificially biase the evaluation to the high side?  yinz had better show da math on dis won!
Any 'false numerical value' will artificially bias the data, but using MDA when your results indicate <MDA is not 'false.' It is the most statistically valid number you can use under the circumstances. Also, it seems to me that when evaluating any health hazard it's better to bias high than low.
When we were told to use -dpm's I posed the question "If a D is the movement of an unstable nucleus toward a stable state, wouldn't a negative D be the movement of a nucleus toward a more unstable, or radioactive, state?" ;)
They said "shut up and do it."

Offline RDTroja

  • Site Heretic
  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3943
  • Total likes: 163
  • Karma: 4553
  • Gender: Male
  • I knew I got into IT for a reason!
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #95 on: Jun 07, 2005, 11:46 »
Any 'false numerical value' will artificially bias the data, but using MDA when your results indicate <MDA is not 'false.' It is the most statistically valid number you can use under the circumstances. Also, it seems to me that when evaluating any health hazard it's better to bias high than low.
When we were told to use -dpm's I posed the question "If a D is the movement of an unstable nucleus toward a stable state, wouldn't a negative D be the movement of a nucleus toward a more unstable, or radioactive, state?" ;)
They said "shut up and do it."

The major flaw in statistical analyses is that they are good for predicting probability and behavior in large samples, but are woefully inadequate in predicting (or measuring) individual events. All you can get from statistics is a prediction of what may happen and a confidence level that the prediction will be right. When you try to apply the science to an individual event or even a small sample, you can get unpredictable or even misleading information. Negative dpms certainly do not exist in the real world and reporting them as results should bring a great deal of doubt upon the reporter's reliability (and perhaps sanity). Including the numbers derived from such samples when using the results to predict future events is valid. BUT... when you are using the information from such counts you have to include them before subtracting background and negative numbers should never be converted from counts to dpm. If you do the conversion, you are in effect validating the counting machine's operating parameters using data that is beyond the machine's ability to accurately measure given the sampling method. Counts below average background are important in establishing the measuring and counting statistics, but not in reporting data.

If we could eliminate background the real meaning of '<MDA' (actually MDC or MDCR would be more accurate because conversion should not take place in the absence of measurable data) would be 'statistically insignificant'. Even if we could develop a perfect shield where the true background was zero, we would still have to deal with the statistical reliability of the random nature of radioactive decay and the physical limitations of the counting system to get our confidence level in our measurements. Throwing background in is what mucks up the works (technical term) and makes us consider such things as negative dpms.

If we could just figure out how to move those isotopes to a less stable state and achieve the corresponding absorption of the normally emitted radiation, maybe we would have that perfect shield. But until then '<MDA' is the best we have and the only time that anything less should be used is in performing or validating the statistical analysis that gets us to what MDA is in the first place. Then we could start using 'statisticaly insignificant'... not much of an improvement.
« Last Edit: Jun 09, 2005, 06:56 by RDTroja »
"I won't eat anything that has intelligent life, but I'd gladly eat a network executive or a politician."

                                  -Marty Feldman

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to understand that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
                                  -Ronald Reagan

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.

                                  - Voltaire

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5750
  • Total likes: 185
  • Karma: 2641
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #96 on: Jun 07, 2005, 06:40 »
Any 'false numerical value' will artificially bias the data, but using MDA when your results indicate <MDA is not 'false.' It is the most statistically valid number you can use under the circumstances. Also, it seems to me that when evaluating any health hazard it's better to bias high than low.
When we were told to use -dpm's I posed the question "If a D is the movement of an unstable nucleus toward a stable state, wouldn't a negative D be the movement of a nucleus toward a more unstable, or radioactive, state?" ;)
They said "shut up and do it."

i feel yer pain.... once when i wuz ona dirt job, 'n wuz dune the same operation but with a  micro are meter, i axed the chp ona job iffen dune negative numberz wit a count rate instrument would be permissible also.  he said sure.  sew i axed iffen converting inta picocuries would be da next step.  he said sure, again.  sew i axed him iffen ya decay negative curies ain't ya growing isotopes?  he told me to get da hail outta da trailer 'n git back to work!
bttt, jist remember, skewed iz skued, iz schewed!  iffen ya figger that <mda is more preferential to recording a negative value, why don't you consider that recording a high value is less preferential than a less high one?  p'rhaps ya should count each data spot 10 times 'n record an average.  that way yer results would be even mostest best, right?  a value <bkg is no less valid than one that is >bkg, it's just value for that spot at that point in time.  if you take multiple readings on the same spot, you will get multiple results.  which are most valid?  'n remember, that great tool of using 2 sigma, only insures that you will be "correct" 95% offa time.  but to get that amount of "correctness" in yer data, ya gotta spread the values twice as far.  sorta like calling yerself a sharpshooter 'cause ya pulled the lanyard on the atomic canyon, ain't it?
« Last Edit: Jun 07, 2005, 06:53 by SloGlo »
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

Aitch-Pee

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #97 on: Jun 07, 2005, 09:32 »
What's clean now is different than it was twenty or thirty years ago.  Clean gets cleaner as technology gets better and better.  Less than 2 (that's mr/hr) was clean at some environmental joints back in the 70's.  Now we get to go back and clean it up again because the rules changed.  Bad for the company, good for Aitch-Pee, and good for the new cleaning companies.  Isn't technology grand?

As for what's clean in 2005.  Well, you couldn't have asked a muddier question.  There is no possible correct answer that everyone would agree on.  I tend to think that if there is any consistently positive indication of activity holding the basic probes up to the object, then it must not be clean.  Course then there's tritium - let's not go there.

Now you don't really think it's possible to answer this question, do you?  If you do - just stick around for a while and get back with me in a couple of decades.  The answer might be different then than it is now - especially if anything weird happens to bump up the background - like a "nucular" burst.

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #98 on: Jun 08, 2005, 06:52 »
which brings us full circle- any found is a pollution indicator. the world is polluted by nuclear technology- fall out from weapons is readily detected in game and hunters, chernobly spread a nice wide band over the southern US, SNAP reactor and Russian reactor burn up in the atmosphere makes plut some what easy to find.  Now, what is the risk.. that is the question that should be asked. 25 mr/yr is a good number, 10 mr/yr is politically correct.   nuff said?

atomicarcheologist

  • Guest
Re: how hot is clean?
« Reply #99 on: Jun 08, 2005, 06:06 »
which brings us full circle- any found is a pollution indicator. the world is polluted by nuclear technology- fall out from weapons is readily detected in game and hunters, chernobly spread a nice wide band over the southern US, SNAP reactor and Russian reactor burn up in the atmosphere makes plut some what easy to find.  Now, what is the risk.. that is the question that should be asked. 25 mr/yr is a good number, 10 mr/yr is politically correct.   nuff said?
This is an interesting hang-up of yours, pollution.  Using Webster's New Third International Dictionary, one finds the #1 definition as "emission of semen than at other times than in coition."  An interesting picture that you paint.  However, since radiation has been present on the face of the planet for as long as you care to measure, I am unsure of the relationship.
 
But I digress, this doesn't bring us full circle.  Maybe it brings us full spiral.  This thread intitiated a discussion designed to elicit discussion of releases of areas based on nuclide data.  That goal has not been gained.  I, personally, have lost interest in the thread as it has run away off course.  However, since there are so many who like this thread I am in favor of it's maintenance for the conversation and postings that have been and will be done.  However, please do not hijack this as another subject.  If you wish to start a thread on nuclear "pollution" I am sure that others will be willing to go to it.

RE: the issue of "negative dpm", this is a moot point.  When performing a survey that will be recorded as permanent, i.e. a Final Status Survey, do it in a manner that is statistically, technically, and politically correct.  Do not convert your data to dpm.  Record it as cpm along with the other pertinent items needed for the conversion such as meter/probe type, serial numbers, CDD, BKG, etc.  In this manner you will remove yourself from a possible discussion of this nature.  Anyone who wishes the dpm value can simply do the conversion themselves and, if they have your data in an easily manipulated program such as Excel, will be able to do it quicker and more accurately than you are able while in the field.  Besides, dpm is such a bogus venue.  Maintaining the data in curies (pCi for the lower ranges of contamination) is much more sensible as you are able to calculate different radiological scenarios rapidly such as; going from surface contamination to potential airborne contamination during different work levels, taking liquid concentrations and figuring out what's on the floor and in the air after you dump the drum, anticipating the dose rate in a room based on the concentration in the tank, etc.  Ooops, there I go, falling into the digression ditch again.  Leave the data in counts.
« Last Edit: Jun 08, 2005, 06:29 by Atomic Archeologist »

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2021 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?