Radiation question

Sounds like the radioactive element is in low concentration (so not may CPS from your samples) in the rainwater (likely radon decay products; Po, Pb, Bi). Over time there is a buildup in the activity with exposure to rains. This would explain why the older wood is showing more CPS than the newer wood, and why the dry wood (presumably doesn't get wet as often) shows low CPS.

.

You might try setting up your GC in a location of low background and then bringing samples to it, to reduce some of the variability from background. Places like in the oven, or possibly refrigerator (depending on the amount of potassium laden food you have in there) might be convenient areas to do counts....on further consideration, the window on most ovens is probably going to be a big advantage over trying to read in a typical refrigerator though.

What model radiac are you using? Are you measuring only beta emissions or beta and gamma? Did you do a measured boundary survey first?

What are you using for a check source?

Are you wearing a luminescent watch on your wrist? Is there any of the same type of wood in any nearby location?

Good Luck, Old Salt

This interaction is exactly how our American Indian brothers constructed their wood/water nuclear power plants...

You had better not be having a "reaction", unless you are one of those cold fusion guys! Quite simply, you cannot have a reaction which "creates" radioactive compounds. However, with a gamma gun and some thorium and americium (easily obtainable) you can create some new elements out of old.

But, a chemical reaction? Not happening unless you are calling in on the George Noory show.

Chemical bonds and charge state do have measurable effects on decay rates, though it is highly improbable that what the OP describes has been noticeably influenced in that manner.

Agreed. I didn't want the OP to think that they could create new radioactive elements by adding (rain) water.

Quite right.

.

... of course there is an exception to almost every rule (probably even an exception to the rule that every rule has an exception...);

which in this case might be either or in combination; the water being added happens to be tritiated...

or water was added in the presence of a substantial neutron flux (acting as a moderator and potentiating transmutation via thermal neutron capture)

.......but if either of those things are happening to any appreciable degree on the OPs deck, there are much more serious concerns.

Roy you have sampled for Radon at the one time that sampling for radon is not recommended. The reason we do not sample during a period of rain or shortly thereafter, is that the real source of the radon, is found under the ground and the water table is getting shallower as a result of the rain. In other word, the upward movement of the water table, displaces the trapped radon in the shallow overburden or rock. So during a rainstorm, you would expect some elevation of atmospheric radon.

You may want to Google Radon Rain or Radon wash out for some information on the transport of radon. I note you are from Ontario, do you live in the Canadian shield? This is an area of ancient granite that contains a lot of uranium and of course radon. If you live near a uranium mining operation, active or not, you may find the tailings will contain a lot of radon and that gas is then given off as a plume that can actually be followed. So living downwind of Elliot Lake may be a source. Of course radon is found in most gases that originate from the ground. Natural gases and most petroleum products contain traces of radon. Any leakage can impart some radon to the atmosphere. Rest assured your levels are low and normal and not of any health issue. Radon has a very short half life of 3.8 days and the daughters of radon have half lives that are shorter again to a small fraction of a second to 30 minutes.

There are some sampling techniques for radon. If you want to sample rain by swiping the deck, make sure it is done consistently. That is taking the swipe from the same sized sample (2 square feet for example) and using a clean material each time. Also consider the location of water wells in the area. The can be the source of radon and be carried by wind to your deck.

I agree with your assurance that from what the OP has suggested, levels are probably not elevated. Even though I wouldn't necessarily agree that there no impact on health, the risks are likely so small it isn't a reason for concern.

.

There are a couple things that deserve clarification.

.

The term 'radon washout' is misleading. Radon being a noble gas is only slightly soluble in water, so the idea that rain is washing this out of the atmosphere to an appreciable degree is pretty hard to swallow. 'Radon decay chain progeny washout' would make up with accuracy what it loses in concision. Bismuth, polonium, and lead can be appreciably washed out off the air and may even be a source of nucleation that induced precipitation.

.

There are also a couple things that need to be clarified about the sentence that followed the reassurance about health issues:

.

"...Radon has a very short half life of 3.8 days and the daughters of radon have half lives that are shorter again to a small fraction of a second to 30 minutes...."

.

First it seems to imply that the radon's decay chain progeny all have half lives shorter than 30 minutes. The most probable decay chain for Ra 222 includes three radioisotopes with half lives longer than Ra 222 at around 5 days, 138 days and 22 years. If you did not intend to make that implication, then I'm merely clarifying it for anyone who might have misunderstood your intent as I did.

.

Second, is another case of what seems to be implied, so if I misinterpreted, this is just to clarify for others who might make my same error..... by having the sentence above follow the assurance about minimal health concerns, you seem to be implying that a short half life or a radioisotope is sufficient to confer a label of 'safe'. There are a couple things wrong with that idea.

.

First, in a decay chain, assuming source and progeny were not segregated (which in fact they are) there is a buildup over time towards a distribution of radioisotopes that yields the same decays per unit time. What that means is that, for a decay chain like this of several isotope steps, short half lives don't indicate a lack of reason for concern, it just means for any decay of the parent isotope there will be a series of additional decays in within a short period of time. Because radon concentrations vary regularly, the accumulation is not steady state, but the principles still apply.

.

Second, even without a lengthy decay chain, short half life is not really beneficial for material to which you are exposed. Short half life simply means more decays per unit time. Other important factors are the type and energy of the decays. The most probable decay path involves some high energy β^- and some very high energy αlphas (not that they usually aren't quite energetic typically 5 MeV range, but almost 8 MeV for Po 214 is remarkable). Definitely not stuff you want to ingest in appreciable amounts.

.

I'm guessing that none of this is new to you, and that confusion either lies in not saying exactly what you meant, or in my not understanding exactly what was written.... either way, I hope the clarification is helpful to anyone who might have received the impression I did.

You are correct and I was perhaps to cavalier about the health aspects. Any exposure to radiation can be dangerous. And certainly it is the decay progenies of radon that are of concern. Any inhalation of these daughters can result in damage to DNA and of course our exposure should be minimized. I am too aware of the health implications as I had a father work in Uranium mines and died too young from cancer. A cancer I believe was a result of his working underground for too many years and being exposed to radon in particular. The point of not alarming Roy (who works in the industry so needs no schooling) about radon was that we are all exposed to radon everyday. It is part of the environment we cannot avoid. That does not mean we cannot minimize our exposure and our homes can be designed to help. Just that it is not helpful to say the sky is falling. Perhaps I should have used a better weasel clause like "not likely harmful".

Part of Roy's question concerned the elevated levels during rainy periods. I had been involved in the ground water industry for almost 50 years and recognized the potential movement of radon out of the ground after rainstorms. It is that movement that may best explain his elevated readings after rainy periods. I doubt Fukishima has any bearing on his results regarding radon. And you are right to point out the need for better testing but then I do not know the objective of the initial sampling. That is something that should be discussed with nuclear specialists, of which I am not.

Actually the testing was done in the Cambridge Ontario area by an associate and I posted it on CR4 on his behalf to see what our learned friends had to say concerning the various readings. I have worked in the nuclear industry on maintenance shutdowns and found this interesting also there is quite a bit of interest on the effects of the Fukushima incident and the migration of radiation.

Sounds like a little spectroscopy is in order. Decay energy spectrum would provide some reliable indications of whether an appreciable amount of the activity was a result of a reactor accident.

Another way to evaluate concerns about contamination being something other than radon progeny would be to collect some samples with high activity and do some counts in a well shielded low background area comparing counts for background, then samples shielding alphas and not shielding alphas. Store the samples in a covered container for at least two weeks and then do counts again comparing background and then the sample both shielding for alphas and not. If the samples can be dried well, then the alpha count should be greatly diminished after only half a day

.

If the activity is predominantly radon progeny there should be much less alpha radiation and less total after two weeks. The same is not true if the contamination is related to something like Fukushima.

roy hammy:


You may have a nuclear power plant in the zone within 100km and their stack release of Radioactive elements that are in the form of gases, after getting partially dissolved in water will comedown with rain water. There also may be some change in temperature gradient and in pressure gradient which can also direct the flow of gases (plume) towards ground. Stack released radioactive gases from nuclear power plants are well known type and require spectroscopic measurement to be known for their exact elements involved.

Some material soak them. Green leaves and perhaps some wood.

Shyam

.

What an outstanding example of quintessential bovine excrement:

.

"...a nuclear power plant in the zone within 100km and their stack release of Radioactive elements that are in the form of gases, after getting partially dissolved in water will comedown with rain water...."

.

Absolutely unbelievable! This really is quite something. Did you come up with this on your own? If not you should share some of the credit with the sources from which derived this truly amazing assertion.

.

By the way you are 5 days late, April Fool's was on the 1st, but due to the outrageous nature of the absurdity you attempted to foist upon us, I think giving you a few extra days is only appropriate. Bravo Sir. You are obviously not someone willing to let pesky facts get in the way of a story you want to tell.

I am a nuclear scientist and trained by WHO and IAEA, UNO, in nuclear instruments and radiation safety. I have worked for 22 years in nuclear research where there are several nuclear reactors at one point.

Now to let you understand it well, all nuclear power plant when they are in running condition release huge amount of radioactive gases in air from their stack of height 300m to 500m which lets the plume in open air. Normally plume gets dissolved in the free air and radioactivity gets diluted to the acceptable level. There something called temperature inversion layer in the atmosphere which acts as mirror for these gases and can push the gases down to earth side without getting these dissolved. Look at any stack which has smoke coming out and plume travels a long distance as tail of a comet and sometime that can be pushed down to earth. This rarely happens but did happen in some cities of USA where suffocation caused several health injuries. Only difference from toxic smoke plume to radioactive plume is that you can't see the radioactive plume.

Good reason is to monitor the environment around the power plant to within 60km to 100km diameter circle and control the damage. In some countries where there are too many nuclear plants working, this may be their frequent problem. We have only few nuclear sites and our environmental survey labs (ESL) are very vigilant all the time. They sample water, soil, air, vegetation, milk, meat etc to know exactly what is going on in time. They come into action 5 years before plant is installed and may remain for 5 years after plants are shut down or closed forever.

We have Atomic Energy Regulatory Board which takes into account all problems and also works along with IAEA, UNO.

Please, nuclear scientist, elucidate us on radioisotope composition of this plume of gasses coming from the 'stacks'.

.

Since you make these claims, based on no reference, but solely upon your claim off authority, please define what you mean by 'huge amount' of gasses. It would be appropriate if you could describe the release in units per time operating at a given power. I'd be happy to accept your description in Mols, grams, or volume at STP of the various constituents/ per Megawatt hour.

.

Thrall us with your acumen.

We normally have Ar-41 radioactive gas but some reactors that use Nitrogen may have C-14 related activity but those are only old type reactors. Some reactor sites may also emit Tritium which is Hydrogen related, and some may have I-131 also. Not all of the radioactivity comes from nuclear reactors, and some may come from facilities within like waste disposal facility and fuel reprocessing facility. All of them dump radioactivity in multiple forms in the environment all the time in their active stage.

If there is some nuclear device test facility around and they are having fun then you may have I-131 in the air which may also quickly enters Thyroid of animals and humans and contaminates water, soil, vegetation, milk and meat all of them.

Ar-41 and I-131 can be detected by the GM counters easily. These are short lived Isotopes so they decay in time. They expose Lungs and Thyroid.

" may have C-14...only old type....may also emit Tritium....may have I-131....not all radioactivity comes from reactors..."

.

Whoa there, 'nuclear scientist'! What happened to your sensationalist claims about huge plumes of radioactive gasses coming from the 'stacks' of every operating reactor? Perhaps the very unscientific nature of your original claim is beginning to cause a little cognitive dissonance. If so, there may be hope for you yet.

.

This c-14 you propose to be part of this clouded of radioactive gas leaking....surely it didn't leak through containment as elemental carbon? Mind going over a plausible regular route?

.

Ar-41? Again, the idea that huge clouds comprised to any large extent by Ar-41 comes from the 'stacks' of a nuclear power plant is absurd. Even though monatomic it is still sizable. Mind detailing the probable regular route out of the plant? Remember the 1/2 life is a couple hours, so the route also needs to be expedient.

.

I-131? Yes operating reactors build up an enormous amount of I-131, so beyond 'may have some' I'll grant they absolutely do have a lot. That is not the same as wafting huge amounts out the 'stacks'.

.

Tritium? Tritium does leak out of some reactors. Guess what...typically as tritiated water. Please back up your irresponsible assertion with a decent peer reviewed study.

.

You still haven't provided any range for what you describe as huge amounts of radioactive gas. You still haven't talked about why the nuclear power plants you describe have 'stacks'. It sounds like you have confused nuclear power with coal power. Coal fired plants have 'stacks', and those stacks do emit radioactive material, but very little of even that is radioactive gas.

.

.

Time to to back and review what you think you know. Something along the way has corrupted your understanding.

Are you nuclear illiterate? Have you ever seen a nuclear reactor or nuclear site? Get educated first. I can't waste my time for you.

<unsubscribe>

Your Radiation Safety Officer course (from your web site)...what kind of internationally recognized certification does a graduate receive?

I am a Radiation Safety Officer certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission which is recognized internationally. I find your comments to be somewhat factually challenged. I also find it hard to believe that your web site is so lacking in information which could be evaluated and validated.

You have not answered the questions posed to you, yet demand the same type of information from someone who questions your qualifications.

The ball is in your court.

No comments on your qualifications. If you know better than go ahead and suggest to the one who needs answer. I am not asking for any help in this matter. You can place your counter argument and suggest the right answer to the OP or to anyone else. Good luck.

Those are no answers for a Nuclear Scientist. Someone asked very simple questions of you. If you cannot stand the pressure of providing logical/accurate answers then just say so or resist from participating on a forum, the purpose of which is to encourage discussion.

Blind faith in words leads no one to Heaven.

You appear to have two somewhat successful companies but...only employ family.

Good luck.

I have plenty of experience not only with operation of PWR but also with radiation surveys, overseeing radiological aspects of maintenance on primary systems, dosimetry, and even chemistry relevant to primary and steam plants.

.

It is quite obvious that you do not. I don't care who administered the course that you believe established your authority. The claims you make are riddled with error and probably harmful to those who might not have distinguished your claims as such.

And here I was thinking about how different ieces of wood have different absorption rates, and how any sealers applied are also subject to variations in the coompleteness of application.