DoD screwed up, AN/UDR-13 radiation detector units dumped on ebay. Review of unit.

[manimal]

hyperbole drax does it again with misleading title and gibberish

 

[pontifex]

i admit i dont english particularly well, but the topic title seemed to mean NUCLEARE WEAPONS BEING SOLD ON EBAY.

correct me if i am wrong.
"nuclear bomb units dumped on ebay. Review of unit."

I assumed it was click bait.

 

[pontifex]

Normal gamma background is typically between 3 and 9 uR/hr when measured with a gamma survey meter.

Burst neutron radiation is emitted when a criticality event occurs.

It is set for .001 but it triggers instantly it crosses the .001 threshold. You want it to alarm at any point at or over .001

And the alarm is loud, also a light goes off and it is a constant alarm.

It's a pretty cool gadget.

Also in Texas 2 years ago a lost source that was dismantled irradiated a bunch of people without their knowledge. You would be surprised how often this happens, it's all on the NRC events website.

You never know when a terrorist might decide to hide a stolen source in a big city one day in order to irradiate and make sick as many people as possible. Simple and effective.

There are some real high sources that generate large gamma fields that can easily be stolen and used as an improvised weapon.

so what does "I check with my Cs-137 1 curie check source and confirm it reads .002 centigrey/hr which means its good. (200uR/hr) " have to do with the conversation? saying .002 is good but then setting it for .001 to alarm, is confusing.

 

[Perknose]

so what does "I check with my Cs-137 1 curie check source and confirm it reads .002 centigrey/hr which means its good. (200uR/hr) " have to do with the conversation? saying .002 is good but then setting it for .001 to alarm, is confusing.

Or prudent, since there is no "safe" level of radiation exposure, so any arbitrarily designated "safe" level simply represents a trade-off based on probabilities.

We talked to scientists, and scientists agree—to use a highly scientific term, "safe levels" of radiation are bullshit. Radiation is unsafe at any level. "The general view," explains Postol, "is that any exposure to radiation increases your risk of some kind of medical consequences." Namely, cancer. "There is no so-called safe level of radiation," agrees Dr. Lisbeth Gronlund, Senior Scientist & Co-Director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Solid cancer risk," echoes Dr. Arjun Makhijani in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "is proportional to radiation dose. Small dose, small risk and large dose, large risk."

[...]

But it's just like getting an x-ray! is a common refrain from those who cling to the idea of safe radiation. Exactly—it is just like getting a chest x-ray—a procedure that increases, slightly, your chance of getting cancer. So too is ridiculous the claim that Hey, we're exposed to natural radiation all the time anyway, so this is no big deal—again, natural radiation that causes, to some extent, cancer—a recent study by the Congressional Research Service pegs the risk of "recommended" background radiation exposure to raise your chance of cancer by 1 in 300. Not exactly trivial.

Attempting to distinguish between "natural" radiation and something else is like differentiating between the respective risks of a flamethrower and a forest fire—both dangerous, regardless of origin.

As the late Berkeley nuclear chemist, Dr. John Gofman put it, "There exists no reason whatsoever to dismiss as negligible any radiation dose from a man-made source simply on the grounds that the dose it delivers is lower than the dose from some combined sources of natural radiation." Or, in simpler terms, it's silly to say "man-made sources of radiation are acceptable because they do not necessarily add quite as much misery and death as do natural sources." The fallacy of pitting a source of radiation against another in attempt to make one of them look "safe" is what Gofman calls "public health in reverse"—a dangerous way to think.

[...]

Doctors give us chest x-rays because we've decided the danger of the x-ray is less than the danger of not knowing what's going on inside our chests. It's a compromise. But to call this safe, to presume zero risk, is dangerous, when it's pouring from the mouth of a government spokesperson we're supposed to trust. And the bottom line is that science just doesn't know how risky small exposures are: "We don't really know the shape of the dose-response curve at very low doses," explains Dr. Jonathan Links, a radiology and environmental health expert at Johns Hopkins University's School of Public Health. In Japan, as has been the case for decades, "safe" is only code for "less cancer-y." How much less? We're not sure. Supposedly "safe" or "normal" levels of radiation may be permissible to us or some authority, "but they are actually low cancer risk levels that assume that that level of cancer risk is acceptable to society," explains Makhijani.

Gizmodo.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Oops I screwed up on the spreadsheet formula.

.001 centigrey is 1150 uR/hr or 1.15 mR/hr
.002 centigrey is 2300
.003 centigrey is 3450

.001 centigrey an hour would be 287 times normal gamma background

 

[phucheneh]

Off topic, but why is it so hard to buy smoke detectors in bulk?

Rather on-topic, really...

...it's probably because some types use americium (which is radioactive), and if you had enough smoke detectors, you could conceivably harvest that material (which, IIRC, requires no special regulations because of the tiny amount present in an individual detector) and combine it into an amount that could actually do something significant (and would be illegal to possess)

 

[Ruptga]

Rather on-topic, really...

...it's probably because some types use americium (which is radioactive), and if you had enough smoke detectors, you could conceivably harvest that material (which, IIRC, requires no special regulations because of the tiny amount present in an individual detector) and combine it into an amount that could actually do something significant (and would be illegal to possess)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ddp1pf_MB8

 

[phucheneh]

...that was a joke?

I don't get it.

I guess I expect jokes to be funny?

 

[notposting]

Hugo, who was the seller? What's a good price on one of these things?

*cinches tinfoil hat down tighter*

*but no, I'm serious*

 

[herm0016]

ill have to check them out. I have an old civil defense set with quartz fiber dosimiters and the lower scale gm tube detectors. This would be way more fun to play with.


I am a certified source handler and supervisor according to the NRC. we use the film badges at work with quarterly reports.

 

[manimal]

please change the title OP. Its retarded



super retarded

 

[Daedalus685]

Or prudent, since there is no "safe" level of radiation exposure, so any arbitrarily designated "safe" level simply represents a trade-off based on probabilities.



Gizmodo.

This is not technically true.

Mostly all of our information about stochastic effects of radiation (your long term statistical risk factors, such as increased chance of cancer) is based on huge acute doses (epidemiological studies on atomic bomb survivors and radiation treatment recipients), then extrapolated back linearly to zero. It is called the 'linear no-threshold model', and is what all of our laws governing radiation are based on. That is to say, "no level of exposure provides zero risk except zero". Which is not the same thing as saying that a low dose is 'bad' as once it is appreciably bellow background the added risk is lost in the inherent risk you face anyway.

This is the prudent way to make laws, it is ultra conservative which is the way to go with human safety. However, there are actually a lot of studies that show this model is not correct, that you must receive a high enough acute dose before any negative effects can be seen. Some studies even show hormesis in some cases (a reduction of risk due to low doses).

Your NRC often convenes to talk about it. But, as is the right thing to do, are extremely hesitant to move away from the current safety first mindset.

It is semantics for sure. But for someone, like myself, who works in nuclear energy, the fear the linear model incites when the media is particularly ignorant as to why it is used can be troublesome. It would be extremely short sighted for me to say "low dose radiation is good for you", but it shouldn't be feared with the fervor it often is.

We are expertly good at measuring small quantities of radiation. For better or worse we can find it everywhere we want to look.

Edit: TL;DR version

Radiation is correctly treated conservatively when making protection laws. This rational for conservatism is not based on up to date science though, but on a desire for absolute assurance of public safety. Rather unlike most other things we make laws against...

 

[dainthomas]

Hot Deals

 

[herm0016]

good post daedalus. radiation incites irrational fear in the public.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Hugo, who was the seller? What's a good price on one of these things?

*cinches tinfoil hat down tighter*

*but no, I'm serious*

You could get them for 180 new old stock.

Some guy hard2rock has 3 left.

It is a cool looking gadget, something designed for World War III

They definitely work. I tested with a 1 and 10 microcurie check source and they measure correct and scale.

 

[manimal]

You could get them for 180 new old stock.

Some guy hard2rock has 3 left.

It is a cool looking gadget, something designed for world war III

change the damn title. I am sick of looking at your clickbait retardedness.



Whose with me

 

[Ruptga]

change the damn title. I am sick of looking at your clickbait retardedness.



Whose with me

Everyone slightly in favor, say meh.

meh.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Tons at 130 dollars. Now that North Korea has Gasoline powered ICBMs that can reach the us in 18 hours and strike hard with 1/16th kiloton yield its probably a good time for some preps. Good paperweight and cheaper than those Nukalerts which do not provide a numerical reading or measure combined neutron/gamma.

Another great value are the Canberra ADM-300 also EMP resistant, but offer many more features for 228 dollars on ebay.

The ADM-300 can measure down to the uR/hr range so you can set it to alarm at 100 uR/hr or lower vs a minimum of 1152 uR/hr on the UDR-13

Typical background on the ADM-300 should be 30uR/hr or less. This unit can be used for dirty bomb alerting, basic decontamination use and can take external probes.

 

[Darwin333]

My current radiation detector is still working just fine. If I see a big ass fireball and a mushroom cloud in the distance, go the other way. Other than that, I'm good to go.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

My current radiation detector is still working just fine. If I see a big ass fireball and a mushroom cloud in the distance, go the other way. Other than that, I'm good to go.

Where would YouTube be if everyone followed that advice? If you see a big ass fireball and/or mushroom cloud or any other sign of disaster, walk towards it and take good video. The survivors will thank you for your noble sacrifice.

 

[sdifox]

It's Uranium One contraband :awe:

 

[Darwin333]

Where would YouTube be if everyone followed that advice? If you see a big ass fireball and/or mushroom cloud or any other sign of disaster, walk towards it and take good video. The survivors will thank you for your noble sacrifice.

I didn't say everyone had to follow my plan, I just said it was my plan. If my plan has to actually be put into place I'll be one of the fuckers thanking the other fuckers for their noble sacrifice.

 

[Hugo Drax]

My current radiation detector is still working just fine. If I see a big ass fireball and a mushroom cloud in the distance, go the other way. Other than that, I'm good to go.

Unfortunately its not that simple anymore. Things like Radiation Emission Device threat. There have been a few cases in the past one in China and one in Russia. Two deaths and several injuries. Something like the 128 dollar UDR-13 would have alerted them if they had one.

https://www.remm.nlm.gov/red.htm

• Example: hiding a hidden radioactive source on a subway or in a sports arena, where people would unknowingly receive radiation exposure (See Figure 1)

 

[AdamK47]

Fear can sell a lot of things. Fear can also push a person to know more about a topic than would otherwise be normal.

 

[Darwin333]

Unfortunately its not that simple anymore. Things like Radiation Emission Device threat. There have been a few cases in the past one in China and one in Russia. Two deaths and several injuries. Something like the 128 dollar UDR-13 would have alerted them if they had one.

https://www.remm.nlm.gov/red.htm

• Example: hiding a hidden radioactive source on a subway or in a sports arena, where people would unknowingly receive radiation exposure (See Figure 1)

Shrug, I'll take my chances.