Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

It's a huge discrepancy; just seeking some help in narrowing down the actual figure along with a source (I've expended significant time already and only my exasperation has resulted in this request for help).

Thanks in advance.

1 posted on 01/06/2017 8:51:18 PM PST by logi_cal869
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: logi_cal869

The chair is against the wall.


2 posted on 01/06/2017 8:54:37 PM PST by Gadsden1st
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logi_cal869

The answer is 7 :)


3 posted on 01/06/2017 8:55:44 PM PST by dp0622 (The only thing an upper crust conservative hates more than a liberal is a middle class conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logi_cal869

My doc says radiation is cumulative.


4 posted on 01/06/2017 8:58:13 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logi_cal869

Check these out. You can probably google NORM/TENORM Faq sheets too.

http://www.easysurf.cc/cnver24.htm

http://www.iem-inc.com/information/radioactivity-basics/basic-concepts


5 posted on 01/06/2017 8:59:14 PM PST by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logi_cal869

so is this a question about “new born Potassium-40” or the use as you will, as an alternative to radio carbon dating? it matters in terms of how the community looks at radioactivity.


6 posted on 01/06/2017 9:04:21 PM PST by waynesa98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logi_cal869

Many years ago, I was doing a research project that involved the force of sliding friction between a certain two materials in contact. So I went to various sources to look for the accepted data.

I was surprised to see how much the data varied on the exact same two materials. I suspect that was due to each researcher’s estimate of uncertainty. Different estimates of uncertainty would lead to different results. Perhaps that is what you are facing here.


7 posted on 01/06/2017 9:07:37 PM PST by Leaning Right (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logi_cal869

The lower number you are seeing may well be the specific activity of naturally occurring potassium which would only contain a small fraction of K-40.


8 posted on 01/06/2017 9:11:30 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logi_cal869

William tell gave you the answer. The much lower figure is the amount of radiation from k40 in “natural K”. K40 is only a tiny part of natural K.

The higher figure is for pure k40


9 posted on 01/06/2017 9:13:26 PM PST by Mount Athos (A Giant luxury mega-mansion for Gore, a Government Green EcoShack made of poo for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logi_cal869

http://www.iem-inc.com/information/tools/specific-activities


10 posted on 01/06/2017 9:14:09 PM PST by Mount Athos (A Giant luxury mega-mansion for Gore, a Government Green EcoShack made of poo for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logi_cal869
The 818 pCi/g amount is for potassium with a natural distribution of stable and radioactive isotopes. The Argonne fact sheet says potassium-40 is 0.012% of natural potassium. Take 818 pCi/g and divide by 0.00012 and you get 6.8 uCi/gram of K-40, which is pretty close to the 7.1 uCi/g you already had, given the number of rounding errors and estimates that are running around.
11 posted on 01/06/2017 9:15:35 PM PST by KarlInOhio (a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity - Pres. Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logi_cal869

Hope this helps.

https://hazmap.nlm.nih.gov/category-details?id=1832&table=copytblagents


13 posted on 01/06/2017 9:20:11 PM PST by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logi_cal869

This may help you too.

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LEA/Conference/06Conf/Presentation/Day2/Radioactive/Greger/K40Food.pdf


14 posted on 01/06/2017 9:22:42 PM PST by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logi_cal869

One more link,

http://www.philrutherford.com/Potassium-40_A.pdf


15 posted on 01/06/2017 9:23:37 PM PST by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logi_cal869

Sorry. That information is need to know. ;)


16 posted on 01/06/2017 10:27:18 PM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logi_cal869
Others are the approximately- corresponding figures of 818 pCi/g, 30 kBq/kg (800 pCi/g, or 810 pCi/g, depending on which converter you use) and 8.54E-10, one of which is cited in the National Research Council book, Evaluation of Guidelines for Exposures to Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials...the basis of the EPA Guidelines for Exposure to Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials.

Me and my buds were talking about that very subject last night in the bar after bowling.........I wish I could remember what they said since they may have had the answer you're looking for.

23 posted on 01/07/2017 9:40:36 AM PST by Hot Tabasco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson