Just wondering, do you care when people die that you don't know? For example, if a bomb was dropped on an orphanage in Syria.
Just wondering, do you care when people die that you don't know? For example, if a bomb was dropped on an orphanage in Syria.
Depends. Sometimes I just shrug my shoulders, sometimes I hear things in the news so tragic that I could cry. The killing is being done by my government, so I am connected to it in some way, and so I should be involved. Anyway, this hasn't much to do with blocks of concrete.
an excellent shielding source for any radiation, however DU is what is used to house radioactive sources, lead would need to be too thick, steel is not even an option. Our Irridium source was shielded in a 400 pound "pig" (ball) of DU. Working close to this for a year, as well as other live soucres and x-ray machines that hit up to the 4mv mark (ability to penetrate up to 14" of steel) I was exposed to @ 50 mr (millirem) annualy, about HALF what you get from one chest x-ray, and 1/4 of the total amount of radiation every person gets naturally, about 200 mr.
An inch of lead will reduce radiation by 50%, you just need to know the output of the material to determine the amount of shelding needed for safety. As with ALL radioactive exposure, the three rules are shielding, distance, and time, all are factors that must be acounted for.
Most people don't realize the majority of radiation you receive yearly is from natural sources, 50% of your total average annual dose is your own body radiating itself....
DU is so weak the radiation is not even detectable at the distance of a few feet.
- you were joking right? If not, please move to a place where DU ammo was used and live there - I want to see your kidsOriginally posted by: B00ne
I hope you looked above, care to debate the issue? Tell me the radioactive output in Roentgen per hour of DU at one foot. If you bother to take the time to find this out I will see you at least made an effort to educate yourself about radiation and will gladly inform you why DU is not a threat. Of course, once you do, you won't need me to tell you.
Originally posted by: B00ne
I worked daily for 8 hours within 10 feet of a 400 lb ball of DU, I aslo wore a Dosimeter (personal, immediately readable radiation dose accumulator as well as a film badge which was changed monthly, all my exposures were strictly monitored and recorded as required by law. You know how much I got in one year? Mind you this is also with 2 other radioactive sources in the same testing room and 7 x-ray machines surrouned this room in other labs, some producing monochromatic beams of radiation in the 4mv range. That's enough to blast through over a foot of steel, also enough to kill you in less than a minute. My total was 48mr, the lab average 52mr. You can safely absorb 5000mr EVERY YEAR. A single chest x-ray will give you a dose in the 100-120mr range. You are exposed to about 200mr on average with no x-rays, medical or dental. This is primarily due to natural sources including your own body which accounts for up to half in some people of total radiation absorbed. Some of the 48mr I acquired was due in part to natural sources as well.
That 400 lb ball of DU we had was used to SHIELD our most powerfull radioactive source, to keep the radiation IN.
DU by itself does not even register as radioactive at a distance of 6 feet. The radiation from the sun is MEASUREABLE. Think those two distances are even close? What do you think is going to expose you to more radiation?
Hopefully the issue regarding the radioactivity of DU as well as it's danger is clear.
I remember reading about the amount of radiation people absorb, and some of the information was pretty interesting.
For instance, when you go on an airplane at 40,000 feet, you are absorbing quite a bit of cosmic radiation. I read that the average airline pilot absorbs the equivalent of 130 chest X-rays per year, just from cosmic radiation.
And another source compared the amount of radiation from wearing a wristwatch with radioactive glow in the dark hands to everyday exposure to radiation:
Effective Dose (microsieverts)
Typical annual dose from wearing a plastic watch containing tritium 4
Radiation dose from cosmic rays in air travel, Melbourne to Perth 13
Average chest x-ray dose 20
Average annual dose from natural background radiation 2100
I find the amount of radiation you absorb by taking just one airline flight pretty surprising. And as I mentioned earlier, an airline pilot who flies all year is exposed to 130 chest X-ray doses worth.
So I wouldn't worry about radiation from depleted uranium. When compared to other routine things like going outside or flying in a plane, its radioactivity is minimal.
For instance, when you go on an airplane at 40,000 feet, you are absorbing quite a bit of cosmic radiation. I read that the average airline pilot absorbs the equivalent of 130 chest X-rays per year, just from cosmic radiation.
And another source compared the amount of radiation from wearing a wristwatch with radioactive glow in the dark hands to everyday exposure to radiation:
Effective Dose (microsieverts)
Typical annual dose from wearing a plastic watch containing tritium 4
Radiation dose from cosmic rays in air travel, Melbourne to Perth 13
Average chest x-ray dose 20
Average annual dose from natural background radiation 2100
I find the amount of radiation you absorb by taking just one airline flight pretty surprising. And as I mentioned earlier, an airline pilot who flies all year is exposed to 130 chest X-ray doses worth.
So I wouldn't worry about radiation from depleted uranium. When compared to other routine things like going outside or flying in a plane, its radioactivity is minimal.
"Effective Dose (microsieverts)" interesting measurement, have a conversion to Roentgens?
I would highly doubt a pilot absorbs 130 chest x-rays worth of radiation annualy. At a conservative estimate of 100mr per x-ray, they would absorb 13,000mr per year, if I go over 5,000mr within one year I cannot work until that year is up. Working around radiation 8 hours day I average 50mr a year. 13,000mr would lead to rampant radiation poisoning of all airline pilots in a few years time. The other problem is this, they are not significantly closer to the sun than we are, it's neglible really, there would be little difference in abosrbed radiation between the surface of the earth and 60,000 feet up in the atmosphere. While our atmosphere does absorb/reflect/reduce the suns radiation, it is not much on the LOWER regions. If pilots were to receive that much, we on Earth would get at least 10,000mr ourselves, more likely 12,990mr.
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: B00ne
I hope you looked above, care to debate the issue? Tell me the radioactive output in Roentgen per hour of DU at one foot. If you bother to take the time to find this out I will see you at least made an effort to educate yourself about radiation and will gladly inform you why DU is not a threat. Of course, once you do, you won't need me to tell you.
See PM
Well I dont know the output of DU in Röntgen at 1foot but I just read the activity of DU on Bq (damn those radioactivity units confuse me: Sieverts, Röntgen Bquerell, Curie - couldnt they define even more?) it was about half of natural Uranium - but in Nature Uranium does not appear in its metallic form and the ore is way less radioactive than DU. But if this radioactivity has much of an effect - u are right I doubt it - as long as it is externally
Effective Dose (microsieverts) this measurement applies to radiation found in the natural world.
even so, alot of their numbers just don't add up.
even so, alot of their numbers just don't add up.
I think Morph's fear of DU stems from the same fear of Nuclear stuff in general.
I find it ironic that the left wingers cry for environmental considerations, but when I propose to them that we eliminate our entire infrastructure of coal plants and use only nuclear for electricity, they cringe and say that's not an option.
Frankly, I'd love to see nuclear reactors all over the United States. I got one in my backyard in Michigan, and I don't have a problem with it. I took a tour of it once, when it was shut down. We got to walk through the cooling towers. Holy crap was that amazing. Standing there, looking straight up, walls of concrete rising to the sky and forming a circular opening. Wow. Truly breathtaking.
Anyways. Yeah. Nuclear power rules. And you absorb more radiation sitting in front of your computer monitor than you'd get from manning a DU machine gun. Food for thought.
I find it ironic that the left wingers cry for environmental considerations, but when I propose to them that we eliminate our entire infrastructure of coal plants and use only nuclear for electricity, they cringe and say that's not an option.
Frankly, I'd love to see nuclear reactors all over the United States. I got one in my backyard in Michigan, and I don't have a problem with it. I took a tour of it once, when it was shut down. We got to walk through the cooling towers. Holy crap was that amazing. Standing there, looking straight up, walls of concrete rising to the sky and forming a circular opening. Wow. Truly breathtaking.
Anyways. Yeah. Nuclear power rules. And you absorb more radiation sitting in front of your computer monitor than you'd get from manning a DU machine gun. Food for thought.
The article mentioned that the reason that the radiation is so much higher at those altitudes is because most of the gases in the atmosphere lie below the altitude that the airlines cruise at. It's not really about being closer to sun, it's mostly about being above most of the protective layer of the atmosphere. Like you mentioned, you are only an insignificant distance closer to the sun, but you are above the vast majority of the radiation absorbing matter in the atmosphere.
Half the gases in the atmosphere reside below 18,000 feet, 90% of the gases in the atmosphere reside below 36,000 feet, and by 99% are below 54,000 feet. So by flying at 40,000 feet in an airliner you are above over 90% of all the matter in the atmosphere that usually absorb the radiation.
BBC:
Yeah yeah, it does say 'believed to be', as the US government does not want people to check it out closely nor wants to release details on what it might be otherwise.
Explanation of DU
Ok my assesment of the filtering levels of the atmosphere was a bit off, thanks forthe correction. A stark difference in shielding could produce such a wide margin even at a similar distance, but I am still finding it hard to believe they abosorb THAT much annualy. I am going to take a look on the web and in my own books and see if I can come up with something.
to mach five
Well, the thing is, many ppl have problems with nuclear power. We here in germany just banned nuclear power altogether (well the existing plants will run until 2030). Although from an environmental standpoint it is probably right, perhaps it would be better to ban all the coal plants. But here in Germany most ppl are opposed to nuke power since Chernobyl and I can understand it, of one NPP around here has a meltdown, u can prolly relocate some 100-200 mill ppl - think about it. Of course they say Nuclear power is save but still at least 2 catastrophic accidents have happened so far and like I said a single one here would be the end of central Europe. (and I dont wanna know what happens if a Jumbo is crashing into a NPP - mind u Frankfurt has about the busiest airspace and there are several plants around here)
But still I also think rather have nuclear power here (.de) than having coal plants or import Energy from potantially dangerous russian plants in neighboring countries (Czechia for ex.)
But nuke power is not a long term solution either. In a lecture I learned that if all el. E (in the world) was produced with NPP the fuel would be gone in 12 years even if those reactors were of the breeding type in 20 yrs.
Well, the thing is, many ppl have problems with nuclear power. We here in germany just banned nuclear power altogether (well the existing plants will run until 2030). Although from an environmental standpoint it is probably right, perhaps it would be better to ban all the coal plants. But here in Germany most ppl are opposed to nuke power since Chernobyl and I can understand it, of one NPP around here has a meltdown, u can prolly relocate some 100-200 mill ppl - think about it. Of course they say Nuclear power is save but still at least 2 catastrophic accidents have happened so far and like I said a single one here would be the end of central Europe. (and I dont wanna know what happens if a Jumbo is crashing into a NPP - mind u Frankfurt has about the busiest airspace and there are several plants around here)
But still I also think rather have nuclear power here (.de) than having coal plants or import Energy from potantially dangerous russian plants in neighboring countries (Czechia for ex.)
But nuke power is not a long term solution either. In a lecture I learned that if all el. E (in the world) was produced with NPP the fuel would be gone in 12 years even if those reactors were of the breeding type in 20 yrs.
The problem with the DU is that it is not a matter of blocks of it lying somewhere, but tiny dust particles which are everywhere, and can and do easily get in food and drink.
I also was looking up some more info on it, and here's what I found.
In this article they state that pilots flying high-altitude, high-latitude routes receive exposures that put them in the top five percent of all radiation workers when ranked by dose.
And In this article they say:
"Cosmic radiation increases with altitude and so airline pilots receive a high exposure from this source; the dose rate at 12,000 metres being about 150 times the sea level dose"
If you look at the numbers that they list on that page, it only comes out to be about 50 chest X-rays. But the site is Australian and I don't know if their domestic pilots fly as much as US pilots do, or if the amount of radiation down there is the same as it is in the Northern hemisphere.
It's funny you mention that. I used to work in a nuclear power plant, and when I first got there I was afraid that I was being exposed to radiation. Then one of the workers mentioned to me that the radiation in the company's coal plants is higher than it is in the nuclear plant. The radiation in the nuclear plant is strictly monitored and regulated, but coal plants are not monitored. Coal, being brought up from deep in the Earth, has a bit of radioactivity to it.
the banning has nothing to do with radiation, rather with the not solved problem of what to do with the radioactive waste and the danger if something would happen in such a densely populated area and last but certainly not least with the agenda of the green party.
The first article you linked had this to say:
"Even so, their exposures are generally no greater than half of the value which is permissible under the more strict European (compared with U.S.) occupational standards."
50 chest x-rays would put you right at the US annual limits, but there is less atmosphere above AU and pilots that fly to/from there are constantly flying LONG flights. TIME, distance and shielding.
According that that article a pilot could expect to get half the annual maximum dose, still, that's really not that much. You could take more over a much shorter period and be perfectly ok, radiation does not always affect everyone equally as well.
"Even so, their exposures are generally no greater than half of the value which is permissible under the more strict European (compared with U.S.) occupational standards."
50 chest x-rays would put you right at the US annual limits, but there is less atmosphere above AU and pilots that fly to/from there are constantly flying LONG flights. TIME, distance and shielding.
According that that article a pilot could expect to get half the annual maximum dose, still, that's really not that much. You could take more over a much shorter period and be perfectly ok, radiation does not always affect everyone equally as well.
So in other words, even though their exposure is in the top 5 percent of radiation workers, it is still only half of what is deemed a safe amount.
I wonder if absorbing your yearly dose spread out throughout the year is safer than absorbing it in one big dose? Even though the total amount absorbed per year may be the same, if you absorb it gradually during a long length of time your body has more time to heal the cells that are affected.
I wonder if absorbing your yearly dose spread out throughout the year is safer than absorbing it in one big dose? Even though the total amount absorbed per year may be the same, if you absorb it gradually during a long length of time your body has more time to heal the cells that are affected.
I bet Alistar knows, but isnt there also a max. dose per hr? that would limit the intensity of the permissable radiation dose.
yes it is far safer to spread out the dosage. In the US they now use the 5r rule, or 5000mr per year, it used to be 1.25 allowed per quarter year. This was safer even though it was still 5r a year, you couldn't take a large dose, say 4r and still be cleared to work right away, as you can right now.
I don't remember off the top of my head and do not want to post the wrong info, but there are permissable doses in one instance of exposure for all parts of the body, and different levels of each which require various steps, from removing the occupational hazard altogether in some cases to required treatment in others. In the US at least, exposures that exceed certain limits require notification of the regulating body.
Maximum dose per hour is somewhat dependant on the intensity of the source, time is only one factor though. I'm not sure exactly what is is you were asking though, can you clarify? thanks.
I don't remember off the top of my head and do not want to post the wrong info, but there are permissable doses in one instance of exposure for all parts of the body, and different levels of each which require various steps, from removing the occupational hazard altogether in some cases to required treatment in others. In the US at least, exposures that exceed certain limits require notification of the regulating body.
Maximum dose per hour is somewhat dependant on the intensity of the source, time is only one factor though. I'm not sure exactly what is is you were asking though, can you clarify? thanks.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter