how hot is clean?

[raymcginnis]

This is still a very interesting poser to me.  I like what Mr. Troja said.  I think that he hit the nail on the head!

It is all about what you know about background, but more than that, it is all about what you can prove about background, whether it be natural or from fallout.  You all have good answers and I have enjoyed this thread.  I just cannot sort out the experienced nuke workers from the anti nukes, who are also allowed access to this site.

Yes, negative numbers can be hard to sell to some protestors, but they are statistically significant and should be used, in my opinion.

If 90% of your numbers are less than zero, before subtracting background how could that be a negative thing?

If everyone wants to release sites to ALARA or as previously posted, ALARTRA, is there some complaint here that I am missing?

The only thing missing on this thread is real science.  I have not seen any math opinions.   All I have seen is emotional or intellectual opinion.  I have no math to offer you today.  All I have to offer is what I know from 28 years of crawling in the belly of nuclear facilities.

I disagree with most of the dissenters of this topic.  I also agree with most of the agreerers! 

[alphadude]

well, pollution indicators are for most of us the way we make a living, including you atomic.  The any I speak of is Cs-137, Pu, Sr90 etc. which are pollution indicators readily found in most of the world. Not allowing for the deed of Onan which you hold dear to your heart, these indicators are signs of invertention by man-yadda yadda.  ( I guess you missed the connection: -bkg-pollutants Sr90, Cs137, KUT, assessment, what is clean. Its all about the same thing!-a mutlifaceted subject)

Clean is a non-polluted area. no man made indicators present!  Acceptable is another thing.. maybe that should be the guestion..How Hot is acceptable! as stated "how hot is clean" is somewhat perjoritive.

Well, why discuss DQOs here Ray, this is old stuff for us which we hack out every day using a set of risk based rules. Using negative numbers with lay people is not a good idea! However, we do use negatives when we look at reliance issues, prepare reports for geeks etc. but all of you know this. 

Look at the work of Shonka for bkg assessment if your interested in numbers. Those guys love the pure science-whereas, we apply it all and make a living out of risk management.

Background assessment.. something near and dear to my heart.(KUT is bkg-the rest we have to deal with!) Proving background is fun stuff. What we see is that in different "cultures" we have varying acceptance of what is actually background. What is background to a powerplant type is usually not acceptable to a D&D type so on. (its all about detection) Both perceptions work!  But who cares its all fun.

And Ray why would you care who is anti-nuke as long as the logic is sound.   

[alphadude]

I looked back at your first posting atomic.. here is your answer. you can leave what the regulators say you can.  its that simple.

[RDTroja]

...Sorry you have AADD.

Please keep the personal insults out of this and don't make us edit your postings.

[alphadude]

Edited because modertors rule.

[RDTroja]

Edited because modertors rule.

Actually that should read "Edited because I didn't follow the rules." But you may believe whatever you like.

[atomicarcheologist]

well, pollution indicators are for most of us the way we make a living, including you atomic.
 

I learn something new every day.  Unfortunately, this is not today's lesson.  Since I first learned to spell HP until the present, I have always labored under the impression that I earned my living, at least a part of it, from dealing with contamination.  However, to be fair, I looked at some references to ensure that I was not on the incorrect page of the HP almanac regarding this issue.  I journeyed through this site, but was unable to locate Moe.  "Darn", says I and proceeded to some other sources.  I checked in;

Basic Radiation Protection Technology 3rd Edition
      Daniel A. Gollnick PhD, Certified Comprehensive Health Physics ABHP

but was unable to find a definition of pollution there that would be agreeable to this discussion.  To be fair, Dr. Dan doesn't have a definition of contamination either, nor any other word.  "Double Darn", and onto the last great resource at hand;

The Health Physics and Radiological Health Handbook  Revised Edition
      Edited by Bernard Shleien, Pharm. D. Certified Health Physicist, ABHP FBPHA

but was unable to find pollution defined therein either!  However, there hidden under the letter "C" was the word I was seeking, "contatimation" and written thusly. 

Contamination- The deposition of unwanted radioactive material on the
surfaces of structures, areas, objects, or personnel.

I feel so relieved. renewed, and resourced that I feel I should go and partake of the events occurring during Thirsty Thursday.  But not to fear, I will not overindulge.  I do not want to ruin my reputation as a surveyor of radioactivity.

[halflifer]

From the Random House Webster's Dictionary 2nd Edition:
"pollute: to make foul or unclean, esp with harmful chemical or waste products; contaminate"
it's just a pocket dictionary and doesn't have a specific deffinition for 'pollution' but I don't think it's too much of a leap of faith to equate 'radioactive contamination' and 'radioactive pollution.'

[alphadude]

come on guys dont be so narrow scoped. as scientists and engineers we are trained to view the total risk of what we do, pollution indicators typically describe "man made stuff that has left the building." Man made rad materials are CERCLA listed and have RQs and are therefore deemed by law as harmful pollutants or hazardous substances.  the dictionary I use (American Heritage) provides one definition as "the contamination of soil, water or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances." 

clean does not equate to hot in any degree. its either contaminated or its not. 0.1 pCi/g of Sr90 in soil indicates contamination (pollution indicator). now the risk is another story! (1.6 mr/yr)

[Rennhack]

I journeyed through this site, but was unable to locate Moe.  "Darn", says I.

Study Tab >> HP/RP/RCT Study >> Moe Handbook (Operational Health Physics Training By H.J. Moe)

[raymcginnis]

I hope that I was not one of the insulters.  I sure did not mean to be.  This has been an enjoyable and educational thread for me.  I have learned from everyone's posts.

I would personally build a house and grow tomatoes on 15 mRem/year.  I am sure that we probably go down to less than 1.6 mRem/year or e-6 levels at our site, but it gets quite expensive and tedious to prove that.

That is why we know that we can prove that we are well below our procedural limit of 15 mRem.year. 

How far below are we?  If you want an exact number, get ready for a tax increase.  If you will settle for ALARA or ALATRA then I think that I can reasonably convince you that there is nothing detectable left.

It still does not seem reasonable to me to count samples for 5 days just to prove the risk levels are where others want them to be.

Keep the ideas flowing and thank you all for jumping in on this subject.  It is educational for me and it is helping with my work.  Nukeworker rocks!

[radgal]

I've recommended this thread to the other HP Techs I work with.  Very informative and thought provoking.  Great thread Ray!

[SloGlo]

come on guys dont be so narrow scoped. as scientists and engineers we are trained to view the total risk of what we do, pollution indicators typically describe "man made stuff that has left the building." Man made rad materials are CERCLA listed and have RQs and are therefore deemed by law as harmful pollutants or hazardous substances.  the dictionary I use (American Heritage) provides one definition as "the contamination of soil, water or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances." 

clean does not equate to hot in any degree. its either contaminated or its not. 0.1 pCi/g of Sr90 in soil indicates contamination (pollution indicator). now the risk is another story! (1.6 mr/yr)

kewlness!  when i'm at yer site eye kin call any contamination outside the buildings as pollution!  yinz got postings fer dat?  dew they caution against radioactive pollution or nuclear pollution, 'n dew they use the werdz caution err danger?  imagine wut the local tv station's gonna say at 5 pm about the pollution leaving the station, cause after all from wut yer posting here, iffen itz manmade 'n leaveen da building, itz pollution!

[Shonkatoys]

If you look at the JPG to the left very carefully you will see were some drums were sitting. These are white and orange rings with other contamination left over from drums in this area.  This is Hot!!! The Black areas are clean!!!! How hot is clean, The black areas are less than 5000 dpm 100 cm2 and therefore clean!!  IT is probably hot where these drums are at!!!  LOL  What great HPs these were!!!:'( [Hey did someone frisk these drums?   Its OK (Put in favorite dirt ball)I say!!!]

[SloGlo]

If you look at the JPG to the left very carefully you will see were some drums were sitting. These are white and orange rings with other contamination left over from drums in this area.  This is Hot!!! The Black areas are clean!!!! How hot is clean, The black areas are less than 5000 dpm 100 cm2 and therefore clean!!  IT is probably hot where these drums are at!!!  LOL  What great HPs these were!!!:'( [Hey did someone frisk these drums?   Its OK (Put in favorite dirt ball)I say!!!]

sew's iz dat 5k total or didn'tja take alphies inta consideration?   what's yer extrapolation fer an avg/sq meter?  is dis pic digital, photofilm, infared?  didja ever try to lightly spritz with water 'n take a timed exposure?  dat kin get very kewl.  btw, i dawn't see no nuclear pollution posting there...

[raymcginnis]

If I may jump in again, The risk levels of living in smog are way above the risk levels that are trying to be imposed upon us.  The tax dollars would be way better spent on making hydrogen fuel cells cheaper, rather than making radiation sites go to e-6 levels.  That is my opinion.  The Native Americans called where I live, the "Land of Smoke" in the olden days, because of wildfires.  Now it is the land of smoke because of automobiles.  Nobody is complaining about them now.  Everyone drives one.  Most people now complain about nuclear technology.  This battle baffles me from time to time.  Natural uranium on the Colorado plateau far exceeds e-6.  Smog in Denver and in LA far exceed those risk levels also.

If we can all agree on this, I will become a musician or a photographer again.  I don't need a nuclear job that bad, LOL!

[alphadude]

true true true ray.... but we make a living out of chaos....

[alphadude]

well pollution indicators designate a scope beyond nuclear power plant mind set, so i can see the resistants to a total risk method. But CERCLA listed items they is..
Oh yea, NPDES lists rad materials too...hmmmm wonder why???

no slo go the news only took pictures of the 5 mr/hr blocks and the pit dug in the guys yard down the road. what do they know!  I guess the give away was the rad materials sign and ribbon they found from the plant that was burried 6 feet down.

[atomicarcheologist]

well pollution indicators designate a scope beyond nuclear power plant mind set, so i can see the resistants to a total risk method. But CERCLA listed items they is..
Oh yea, NPDES lists rad materials too...hmmmm wonder why???

no slo go the news only took pictures of the 5 mr/hr blocks and the pit dug in the guys yard down the road. what do they know!  I guess the give away was the rad materials sign and ribbon they found from the plant that was burried 6 feet down.

I see that you insist on playing with only your own toys.  It's a good thing for this thread that my mother taught me to get along with playmates and not stamp my feet and insist that things go my way.
Thursday evening while partaking of Thirsty Thursday activities, I engaged some young engineering types of various disciplines in this discussion of pollution.  After beating it around in several venues we finally agreed on a definition that:
to pollute (in the non-carnal mode) was to introduce material into an environment in a quantity the would be detrimental.
We finally came to this after much lively discussion with plenty of insults for opposing viewpoints and occupations.  What a fun evening.  It was to a point where a non-participant tried to interject a viewpoint and was told that, after all, asbestos was a naturally occurring mineral and he should go snort a pile.  What a hoot, coming from a small slip of a female hydrogeologist.
  Isn't the NIOSH exposure limit for cobalt 0.05 mg/m3 ? Uranium exposure limit of 0.2 mg/m3 ?  Iodine limit of 0.1ppm (1 mg/m3 )? Cesium 2 mg/m3 ) ?  Not to mention beryllium ( 0.002 mg/m3 ) .
How does the NPDES AND CERCLA listed values differ from those of the NRC and other regulatory agencies that utilize the CFR?
Doesn't the Clean Air Act permit to exempt area sources if the EPA is able to determine that complying with the requirements is impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily burdensome for the facilities?
It's been awhile since I had a nuclear power plant mind set.  Even when I did earn the majority of my annual income from the power plants I maintained active contacts and did work in environmental, remediation, D&D, and assorted other activities on property of private and various governmental concerns.  Thank you for your concern RE: my reistants (sic), but I do not see the need.

[alphadude]

CERCLA is a list provided by an agency, and NPDES is an agency program. Metal toxicity is typically not associated with rad with the exceptions of the Uranium family and maybe some other nasty items.  In D&D, pollution indicators for rad are called "plant impact" and tie into MARSSIM, but its still an indicator of a pollutant.

NPDES is the National Pollution Discharge Ellimination System- which lists rad materials as pollutants.  Some how the water is getting very muddy here.

HOW HOT is ACCEPTABLE?? that is the question...

[atomicarcheologist]

Alpha dude,
How hot is acceptable (red faced emphatic volume deleted)?  If that's the way I have to ask a question to get an answer, so be it.  I am getting exhausted asking and asking and asking on this thread.  I mean, when others have asked their questions and posed their scenarios, I have answered, have I not?  I started out asking 'how much', and anticipating numerical replies.  I then went with asking 'how about 100Kdpm/100cm2 co60 & 150K U238' which I downgraded the Co60 to 50K in response to a post.  Then I posed a scenario with 50000dpm/100cm2 fixed contamination of Co60 in an area that was 100cm2 and sited 1 meter above the floor.  However, the replies have not directly addressed the questions.  So, I am left with the feeling that many do not have answers, and those that do are reluctant to post them for fear of retribution.  However, if "acceptable" is preferable to "clean", then so be it.

[thenukeman]

The Knoxville Sentinel had on the front page that Bechtel Jacobs had about 100 Alpha instruments that they do not know how long they were not working.  So how hot is clean.  Hmmm it depends on what meter you were using, and if you  know if it was working or not.

[atomicarcheologist]

The Knoxville Sentinel had on the front page that Bechtel Jacobs had about 100 Alpha instruments that they do not know how long they were not working.  So how hot is clean.  Hmmm it depends on what meter you were using, and if you  know if it was working or not.

Well, yes.  I thought we were working professionals here, not media reporters.

[alphadude]

well archy, its too hard to explain how we do our jobs here in a few paragraphs.  it takes some of us days, weeks, months to determine what dose a few thousand dpm of some nuclide will deliver over a 1, 10, 25 year period.  You will never get a cut and dried answer... perhaps this thread has been pulled to the limit.

Looking at the replys they are all good and in the applied situation-acceptable.  As for us giving some universal number that will be used to make lite conversation over a few brews... aint gonna happen. 

ray, shonkatoys, myself and others told how it is! its not a black and white thumb rule situation!!!  (cha-ching.. thats why we make the big dollars$$$$)

read "Decomissioning Health Physics," Ablequist, and most of your concerns will be answered.

[raymcginnis]

Yes, as I expected, every site is different.  MARSSIM left that flexibility just as the founding Fathers left the flexibilities in the Federal laws.  The most important things in government are left up to local areas.  State and County and City laws are left up to how people in the area feel about it.  This is one of the wise provisions of MARSSIM.  It is only guidance.  If your federal regulators expect you to go by MARSSIM explicitly, then you have to negotiate with you State regulators.  If you can get them to agree that you plan is the best, the Feds may back off.

This is very complicated subject.  Most States have adopted MARSSIM, because it is easier on them.  Local opinion is another thing.  When you look at risk, ask yourself, would I live here?  If not then maybe you need to look at this.  If you are the only one out of 200 people on the release crew who answers no, it is time to move somewhere else.

We all have to remember background.  There is potassium at high levels (1460 keV), natural uranium. Natural thorium and Cs-137 fallout (~0.1 pCi/g) in our area. 

What are we talking about here?  How many lives will be saved by going below 15 mRem/year?  I say it is all math tricks and not reality.

2 lives per year over five years cannot be measured.   This is all smoke and mirrors by protestors.

We are all going to the other side of life, that I can guarantee.  Nobody lives forever.  People who are recalculating these measurements, good luck!  You will never get the calculations perfect because there is a higher power than you, whether you believe it or not.  I think that Humans will never be able to predict the number of deaths from any sort of pollution, much less, nuclear pollution, with natural background.  There is no natural PCB background, so it is easy for labs to see whether it exists or not.  If there is a radiation detector that can see e-6 levels, cost effectively, tell me the name.  I'll take a look at it.

This link has a thumbs up for NukeWorker.  It is very popular, which is why I keep joining in.  Nah, actually, I'd join in anyway, because it is fun for me also.  This is a fun link!  I think about this every day!
We all have to remember background.  There is potassium at high gamma levels (1460 keV), natural uranium. natural thorium and Cs-137 fallout (~0.1 pCi/g) in our area. 

What are we talking about here?  How many lives will be saved by going below 15 mRem/year?  I say it is all math tricks and not reality.

2 lives per year over five years cannot be measured.   This is all smoke and mirrors by protestors.

We are all going to the other side of life, that I can guarantee.  Nobody lives forever.  People who are recalculating these measurements, good luck!  You will never get the calculations perfect because there is a higher power than you, whether you believe it or not.  I think that Humans will never be able to predict the number of deaths from any sort of pollution, much less, nuclear pollution, with natural background.  There is no natural PCB background, so it is easy for labs to see whether it exists or not.  If there is a radition detector that can see e-6 levels, cost effectivly, tell me the name.  I'll take a look at it.

This link has a thumbs up on Nukeworker.  It is very popular, which is why I keep joining in.  Nah, actually, I'd join in anyway, because it is fun for me also.  This is a fun link!  I think about this every day!