BRAWM Team: Calif. State 3/22-3/24 Air Sample Result Questions

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2011-04-24 09:33

I asked this buried in another post. But decided to post it
seperately.

What are your thoughts on the CDPH result below?

And what does that translate into as far as the number of years
required to breathe that air to equal the exposure of the round
trip plane flight? Is it ~18 years?

The CDPH 3/28 report has an air reading for I-131 1.11 pCi/M3
(4.11E-5 Bq/L). This sample was collected from 3/22-3/24.

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Documents/CDPH-RHB-RadReport-2011-03-28.pdf

The BRAWM team measured the following during that period:

3/22-3/23: 3.4E-6 Bq/L (2.2E+02/220 years)
3/23-3/24: 4.3E-6 Bq/L (1.7E+02/170 years

If my math is correct, the CDPH number is almost 10x higher
than the BRAWM 4.3E-6 Bq/L measurement, which is the highest
recorded by the BRAWM team to date. In fact, all but one of
their results in that report are high than the BRAWM team.

‹ U.S. radiation levels are still increased from the Japan earthquake D. Chivers, quick question ›

I don't know if there's a

Submitted by tjaucott on Thu, 2011-04-28 07:07.

I don't know if there's a typo or what, but when I look at the actual data report that this came from, I don't see any measurement at 1.11 pCi/m^3. The Richmond sample from 3/22 - 3/24 shows I-131 at .211, five times lower.

Please do not be bothered by small discrepancies like this. They are measuring in a different location than us, at different times, and weather is a very fickle and complicated thing.

Tim [BRAWM Team Member]

Thanks, Tim

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-28 08:45.

I thought that the discrepancy between final and preliminary reports was
strange too. I would hope that they would be more careful.

Anyway. Thanks for getting back to me. Really appreciate all you are doing.

Bump

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-27 22:13.

Would like to get the BRAWM team's comments on this measurement.

If the CDPH testing is using

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-04-24 10:07.

If the CDPH testing is using charcoal canisters rather than filters, it causes roughly a 10x increase in detection. This was covered before, I believe, but I don't remember if it changed the BRAWM measurements.

CDPH is using filters

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-04-24 11:41.

In their preliminary analysis report, they state
"Sample Type: Air Filter".

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Documents/CDPH-RHB-PreLabAnalysis-2011-0...

Bump

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-04-25 08:36.

Bump

Bump

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-04-25 21:27.

Bump