Background radiation

  • I
  • Thread starter dlgoff
  • Start date
  • #1
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,284
2,495
Summary:
Background radiation question
I'm seeing 2-3K counts/minute background on my Ludlum Model 3 Survey Meter. Are we having above normal rates lately?

Never mind, I was on the X0.1 scale. But that's still high, isn't it?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
gleem
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
1,902
1,280
What kind of probe do you have? GM or scintillator?
 
  • #3
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,284
2,495
What kind of probe do you have? GM or scintillator?
It's a NaI(Tl) scintillator, 2.5 cm (1 in) dia. x 0.1 cm (0.04 in) thick*

*From this link: https://ludlums.com/products/all-products/product/model-44-3

That link does show that Typical Background is 300cpm, so maybe what I'm seeing is normal.
 
  • #4
gleem
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
1,902
1,280
Ok. I have used this probe for contamination surveys. It is used primarily for low-energy gamma/Xrays. Being thin its response for high energy gammas is fairly low. 2-3k counts per minute is definitely high. Is this a new instrument for you? Did it come with a check source?
 
  • #5
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,284
2,495
Did it come with a check source?
I do have a check source. Not sure what I should be seeing, but at about 6 inches away, I'm seeing a little less than 1K counts/minute.
 
  • #6
gleem
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
1,902
1,280
6 inches away from what?
 
  • #7
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,284
2,495
6 inches away from what?
Away from the check source.
 
  • #8
gleem
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
1,902
1,280
Duh, sorry about that question. That sounds reasonable. How does it compared to the reading when you first got the instrument?
 
  • #9
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,284
2,495
Duh, sorry about that question. That sounds reasonable. How does it compared to the reading when you first got the instrument?
Actually, I've only had it for a short time. I purchased it on Ebay and there are no calibration stickers. I guess it needs to be calibrated correctly, which I don't know how to proceed.

BTW: Thanks for your time with this.
 
  • #10
gleem
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
1,902
1,280
The problem with this particular probe is that it is meant for low-energy gammas. Most sources of radiation that you might be interested in are fairly high. The problem is the sensitivity and therefore the cpm/ millisievert is dependent on the radiation energy.

Here is an energy response curve from Ludlum
Gamma energy response curve.png


As you can see the cpm varies significantly for the energy of the gamma so radiation exposure rate for a given isotope will not be the same for a given cpm reading.
 
  • #11
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,284
2,495
The problem with this particular probe is that it is meant for low-energy gammas. Most sources of radiation that you might be interested in are fairly high. The problem is the sensitivity and therefore the cpm/ millisievert is dependent on the radiation energy.

Here is an energy response curve from LudlumView attachment 291421

As you can see the cpm varies significantly for the energy of the gamma so radiation exposure rate for a given isotope will not be the same for a given cpm reading.
I understand, but I'm seeing these high readings from just the background.

edit: Still could be a good calibration is needed.
 
  • #12
gleem
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
1,902
1,280
Then you said you had 1 Kcpm from the check source. Did you get that number by subtracting the background reading from the check source reading? Where was the check source when you initially read the background?
 
  • #13
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,284
2,495
Then you said you had 1 Kcpm from the check source. Did you get that number by subtracting the background reading from the check source reading? Where was the check source when you initially read the background?
Let me try reading the check source then subtracting the background. I've got someone coming for dinner, so I'll check later and reply here.

The check source was in a lead pig when I looked at the background.

You've been very helpful. Thank You
 
  • #14
gleem
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
1,902
1,280
Take the meter outside away from any buildings to check the background. If the reading is still high there may be a problem with the meter.
 
  • #15
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,284
2,495
Take the meter outside away from any buildings to check the background. If the reading is still high there may be a problem with the meter.
Will do. I moved around in my trailer thinking there might be a source somewhere. But outside it is. :)
 
  • #16
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,284
2,495
@gleem
Okay. Outside, the check source, at about 8 inches away from the detector, was reading 1000 counts/minute and the background varied from 200 to 300 with burst sometimes to 500 counts/minute. So, what does this tell us?

Thanks. Just trying to make sense of this.
 
  • #17
gleem
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
1,902
1,280
Sounds like the detector is fine. Go back in the house with the detector on and watch the background as you get closer. Does it stay about the same 200-330 cpm?
 
  • #18
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,284
2,495
Sounds like the detector is fine. Go back in the house with the detector on and watch the background as you get closer. Does it stay about the same 200-330 cpm?
Inside, the background is now showing 200 to 300 counts/minute. So all's good, right?
 
  • #19
gleem
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
1,902
1,280
Right so why the 2 - 3 Kcpm counts in the OP?
 
  • #20
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,284
2,495
Right so why the 2 - 3 Kcpm counts in the OP?
I don't know. Looks like the thing fixed itself.
 
  • #21
gleem
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
1,902
1,280
Check the counter with your check source in the same configuration every time you use it.
 
  • #22
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,284
2,495
Check the counter with your check source in the same configuration every time you use it.
Okay. Hopefully it stays fixed.

Thanks for all your help
 
  • #23
gleem
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
1,902
1,280
Maybe what you observed was radiation from a solar flare that is occurring presently.
 
  • #24
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,284
2,495
Maybe what you observed was radiation from a solar flare that is occurring presently.
That's what I was thinking when I wrote, Are we having above normal rates lately?, in the OP. So there is a solar flare going on? I tried googling about that, but couldn't find a reliable site. Thanks.
 

Related Threads on Background radiation

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
952
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
971
Replies
3
Views
968
Replies
4
Views
809
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
756
Top