Why do you need RESRAD BUILD? You asked about other software and models in radionuclide assessment. All the RESRAD codes were developed for regulatory compliance. They are worthless for learning anything about radionuclides. They are worthless for regulatory compliance except where you are required to use them to the exclusion of anything else.

There are models that can help you learn about radionuclides. Why and what do you want to learn about radionuclides?

hello Yazdi,

i think if u want to learn about the RESRAD BUILD Code, u can learn it by yourself. You can download the software from the website https://resrad.evs.anl.gov/ and then you can trial and error to operate it as ur assumption in simulation. Maybe u can learn, trial and error, or compare it from another paper on several journals. I think there are several title of papers regarding RESRAD BUILD. ANL also have guidelines how to use the RESRAD BUILD, u can read and then try it.

Joseph L Alvarez

Dear Dr. Alvarez,

First of all, thank you very much for guiding me.

In fact, I have recently decided to research indoor and outdoor radionuclide monitoring and came across this software during my search and I was eager to learn about it.

If it is not worth working on, I would appreciate it if you could introduce me the models and application software for monitoring, evaluating, and determining the algorithm of radionuclides in the environment.

Sincerely yours,

Niloufar. B.Y

Hermawan Puji Yuwana

Hello Mr.Hermawan Puji Yuwana

Thank you very much for your guidance. I will try to do my best in this field.

Best wishes,

Niloufar. B.Y

Niloufar Borhani Yazdi There are no computer models that can teach you about radionuclide monitoring or environmental transport. You can learn how to use the models, but that does not teach you anything about what the models are doing and why. The RESRAD models are good examples of bad modeling. The models were designed for one purpose; to provide simple answers to problems specific to US Department of Energy. These models were over-sold to answer any radionuclide problems including those not specific to the US DOE.

This criticism extends to every other radionuclide model that allows non-specialists to employ them. They all require specialists to understand them.

Are you taking courses in radionuclide measurement and environmental transport? If not, you cannot hope to learn anything by learning models.

Joseph L Alvarez

I recently entered the field of modeling the behavior of radionuclides and I am looking for practical models in this field.

Can you please guide me on what courses I should attend in order to be able to work in radionuclide measurement and environmental transport?

Niloufar Borhani Yazdi I cannot answer your question about which courses to take. Your profile says you are familiar with Water and Wastewater Treatment and Radiochemistry and Radionuclides. It appears you have some knowledge in the applicable fields. I do not know your actual knowledge and experience, so, I cannot recommend. Had you no knowledge in the fields I would recommend to start with basic radioactivity with an emphasis on radiation protection. I would recommend basic environmental studies and basic environmental transport.

You cannot learn the basics or sufficient advanced knowledge from a computer model. A computer model is a tool to be used by someone who already knows the answer and how to find the answer. A good model will simplify and reduce the tedium of computing the answer.

What I mean by knowing the answer is one must know

• Why
• What
• How

Why. There is a purpose. The purpose is often confused with 'meet a regulatory requirement,' 'meet a goal,' perform a client's request' ... The why is easily confused within the framing of the question. 'Meet a regulatory requirement' could mean 'demonstrate and ensure protection of personnel or environment.' The regulatory requirement could be in terms of cannot exceed or similar wording that misdirects from the actual why.

Recognizing the misdirection can easily lead the investigator into a battle that cannot be won. Pick your fights, but always know the real 'why.'

What. A particular investigation has an endpoint. Define the endpoint and how to demonstrate the endpoint. Example: B must be, at least, 10 times larger than A to ensure that C is controlled to a sufficient certainty. The investigator needs to define 'what' constitutes success. Note: It is highly unlikely (impossible?) that 'what' can be defined by a statistical test.

How. The investigator determines the methods, procedures, equipment, sample size ... to succeed as defined under 'what.' 'How' might include a computer program. The investigator must know what that programs does and must know if that program provides the kind of answer needed under what and why.

There is much more to be said under how, but the list of 'how' depends on 'why' and 'what.' Many investigations fail by starting with 'how' instead of 'why.'

It is easy to start with 'how' because teaching methods and common practices usually emphasize 'how.' 'How' is easy to emphasize because there are lots of 'hows' and many common or expected 'hows.' The best way for an investigator to overcome the 'how' bias is through knowledge of the field and knowledge of 'why.'

This is already too long, but must ensure that my statements concerning the RESRAD family of models are misconstrued. RESRAD is useful, but not for beginners or those who have no real interest in 'why.' Most models start out purpose-built. Calculations are long, tedious, and prone to human-error. A well-constructed and well-tested algorithm is a service to those afflicted with a life-time shorter than the calculation-time.

Some serviceable algorithms/models acquire additional modules to expand their capability. Some acquire additional modules to ease data entry and afford data assurance and review. Some acquire modules that allow those without knowledge of the algorithm to produce serviceable results. The programs are further refined to make them 'fool-proof.' The 'fool-proof' stage ensures that the program becomes useless and dangerous. They become more dangerous as more modules are added to deal with the even bigger and better fools who start to use them. The model is now on its way to becoming the industry standard.

An exception to my harangue about learning from a computer program might be the statistics program r. The exception is possible if you have a good statistics book, a good and patient statistician-friend, and a commitment to 'why, what, how'.

Joseph L Alvarez

Dear Dr. Alvarez

Words are powerless to express my gratitude to you. I truly appreciate you and the time you spent helping me with this.

Best regards

Niloufar. B.Y