Radiation?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
John Connor

John Connor

Lifer
Nov 30, 2012
22,757
619
121
What is the acceptable radiation limit that a human can tolerate? In CPS, REM or other measurement. CPS would be best. I'm going to buy a geiger counter and would like to know.
 
D

DeathRayLoveMachine

Member
Jul 18, 2009
122
0
0
I have a little background in nuclear safety and physics, and it would be shockingly irresponsible of me to answer this question without knowing what the hell you think you're going to do. Geiger counters are very difficult to use and when you ask questions that conflate REMs with becquerels (CPS), I seriously wonder if there's a risk you're going to go off and get yourself killed.

FYI, no measurement a Geiger counter gives you can be considered reliable until it has been successfully tested and compared against a sample (or several samples) of known intensity. This goes double for a cheap unit.
 
John Connor

John Connor

Lifer
Nov 30, 2012
22,757
619
121
I'm not planning on doing anything. I just have a small rock that is comprised of Uranium and would like to check it out. I will be buying a Uranium sample that lists it's CPM to verify my counter. The counter I'm looking at is this one. http://www.ebay.com/itm/111164605922?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

http://www.amazon.com/Images-SI-Inc-...ef=pd_sim_hi_5

I just wanted to know what the radiation limit was for health reasons. I have always wanted to know that. I guess 100 CPM is the limit?
 
Last edited:
D

DeathRayLoveMachine

Member
Jul 18, 2009
122
0
0
John Connor said:
I'm not planning on doing anything. I just have a small rock that is comprised of Uranium and would like to check it out. I will be buying a Uranium sample that lists it's CPM to verify my counter. The counter I'm looking at is this one. http://www.ebay.com/itm/111164605922?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
Click to expand...

Natural uranium poses minimal health risks. For safety you should avoid handling it directly, but even then the risk is extremely small.

That looks like a solid-state counter, and I don't have an experience with those so I can't give you any tips on using them beyond verifying its measurement against a sample.

I just wanted to know what the radiation limit was for health reasons. I have always wanted to know that. I guess 100 CPM is the limit?
Click to expand...
Other than the amount of radiation received, there are three important factors to consider when determining the health effects of radiation exposure: the type of the radiation (alpha, beta, gamma, neutron, etc.), whether the exposure is over all of the body or only a part of it, and whether the exposure is over a short interval (acute) or a long period (chronic).

Just to give you some rough estimates:
300 mrem/year is considered the upper limit for levels of "safe" natural background radiation
background radiation higher than about 1000 mrem/year is linked to increased cancer rates
an airplane flight is about 0.5 mrem/hour
a chest X-ray is about 5-10 mrem
measurable health effects for acute radiation exposure are typically seen for doses of over 100 mrem (to all of the body or to one specific part)
radiation therapy is typically in the thousands of mrem
the upper limit for human survival to radiation (over the whole body) is in the hundreds of thousands of mrem

Converting counts per minute into mrem is not easy as it requires knowledge of the type and energy of the radiation being measured, and the ability to estimate the portion of the body exposed and the amount of radiation absorbed.
 
D

DeathRayLoveMachine

Member
Jul 18, 2009
122
0
0
Also, I apologize if my first reply was rude. Please consider how your OP looked from my perspective, though:

*You mentioned buying a new Geiger counter.
*You asked about the maximum radiation exposure limits for a human being.
*It was immediately apparent that you didn't know how to use a Geiger counter.

You can't blame me for being concerned about what you were getting up to.
 
T

Tuna-Fish

Golden Member
Mar 4, 2011
1,672
2,547
136
John Connor said:
What is the acceptable radiation limit that a human can tolerate?
Click to expand...

The short answer is that we don't actually know, because due to ethics issues we have not been able to run the necessary trials.

We can predict the effects of high doses quite reliably, thanks to data collected from various accidents. However, we have no good human model for long-term damage from a low-powered source. For the longest time, the consensus was to just use a linear model -- that is, estimate that if you got 1% of the dosage that has been shown to give cancer to 10% of people, your risk of cancer from that dosage would be 0.1%. Lately, new statistical studies (but very little new data) have challenged the linear model.

Basically, the best the state of the art can give you is some bounds over which radiation will definitely be harmful. However, we can't tell you if a certain level of radiation is safe.
 
S

SecurityTheatre

Senior member
Aug 14, 2011
672
0
0
For a layman, here is a great chart comparing radiation.

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Remember, different KINDS of radiation affect people and tissue drastically differently.

Everything from radio to visible light to x-ray and gamma rays are all the same stuff, just in a different spectrum. But things like alpha particles are a different kind of radiation entirely.

There is a difference between ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation, as well.
 
John Connor

John Connor

Lifer
Nov 30, 2012
22,757
619
121
What I would like to know in a hypothetical situation is if Russia were to nuke Denver what would be the limit outside for me here in Loveland which is about 50 miles north? I would like to know what the acceptable limits are and what to avoid from a nearby blast. LOL!

Does a solid-state counter not have a tube with gas? I can't remember what gas is in the tube. I do have an old Geiger counter, but the dial is busted, but it has a probe. This Geiger counter has a retractable aluminum sleve on the probe. I found it to be more sensitive when the sleve was raised. I'll have to do a video with my Uranium.
 
John Connor

John Connor

Lifer
Nov 30, 2012
22,757
619
121
So that explains the kits I've seen on eBay. I was wondering where the ionization chamber was.
 
Revolution 11

Revolution 11

Senior member
Jun 2, 2011
952
79
91
John Connor said:
What I would like to know in a hypothetical situation is if Russia were to nuke Denver what would be the limit outside for me here in Loveland which is about 50 miles north? I would like to know what the acceptable limits are and what to avoid from a nearby blast. LOL!

Does a solid-state counter not have a tube with gas? I can't remember what gas is in the tube. I do have an old Geiger counter, but the dial is busted, but it has a probe. This Geiger counter has a retractable aluminum sleve on the probe. I found it to be more sensitive when the sleve was raised. I'll have to do a video with my Uranium.
Click to expand...

If Russia decided to nuke Denver (why there of all places), that means many other cities have also been nuked. Like New York and Chicago and LA. Denver is pretty down the list of targets to nuke. I am sure that you will get more radiation from bombs dropping on Norad instead of Denver. :\

Radiation exposure will be the nice problem to have in a post-nuclear war America. As someone worried about SkyNet and how nukes will affect you, I recommend you watch Peter Watkins' 1965 documentary, The War Game.
 
herm0016

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
8,516
1,128
126
i am an NRC certified radiatoin supervisor and handle chemical and electronic sources, gamma and neutron up to an equivalent of 50 ci.

DeathRayLoveMachine said:
Just to give you some rough estimates:
300 mrem/year is considered the upper limit for levels of "safe" natural background radiation
background radiation higher than about 1000 mrem/year is linked to increased cancer rates
an airplane flight is about 0.5 mrem/hour
a chest X-ray is about 5-10 mrem
measurable health effects for acute radiation exposure are typically seen for doses of over 100 mrem (to all of the body or to one specific part)
radiation therapy is typically in the thousands of mrem
the upper limit for human survival to radiation (over the whole body) is in the hundreds of thousands of mrem
Click to expand...

i don't know where you get your info, but it's wrong.

100 mSv is an increase cancer risk. which is 10 Rem. your figures are way off. acute exposure is not seen until 2000 mSv or 200 rem.

http://lowdose.energy.gov/images/ig_pics/026_dose-ranges-sievert.jpg
 
Last edited:
Blue_Max

Blue_Max

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2011
4,223
153
106
Anyone who lives near the west coast may want to consider their exposure, thanks to Fukushima still spewing radioactive death...
 
John Connor

John Connor

Lifer
Nov 30, 2012
22,757
619
121
It's really not bad at all. I saw the readings on a link I think posted here. It's barely measurable. The problem with Fukushima was the back up generators for the cooling pumps got flooded. Had they been built up higher non of this would have happened.
 
S

SecurityTheatre

Senior member
Aug 14, 2011
672
0
0
herm0016 said:
i am an NRC certified radiatoin supervisor and handle chemical and electronic sources, gamma and neutron up to an equivalent of 50 ci.



i don't know where you get your info, but it's wrong.

100 mSv is an increase cancer risk. which is 10 Rem. your figures are way off. acute exposure is not seen until 2000 mSv or 200 rem.

http://lowdose.energy.gov/images/ig_pics/026_dose-ranges-sievert.jpg
Click to expand...

The only thing he said that differs from the data in your chart is the cancer risk, which he placed at 1rem and you placed at 10rem (and maybe the part about measurable health effects at 100mrem). The rest of what he said matches the charge pretty accurately.
 
Blue_Max

Blue_Max

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2011
4,223
153
106
John Connor said:
It's really not bad at all. I saw the readings on a link I think posted here. It's barely measurable. The problem with Fukushima was the back up generators for the cooling pumps got flooded. Had they been built up higher non of this would have happened.
Click to expand...

SecurityTheatre said:
Really?

Do you know how large the Pacific Ocean is? Can you cite any specific measurable issues? Seriously?

You're more likely to die from di-hydrogen monoxide poisoning...
trololol
They should really ban the stuff...
Click to expand...
The thing didn't just release radioactivity in one burst - it's been leaking furiously ever since. A LOT of radiation can still fill the enormous Pacific Ocean with trace-or-more amounts. I'd sure think twice about what fish you eat. [/threadjack]
 
Gibsons

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
Revolution 11 said:
If Russia decided to nuke Denver (why there of all places), that means many other cities have also been nuked. Like New York and Chicago and LA. Denver is pretty down the list of targets to nuke. I am sure that you will get more radiation from bombs dropping on Norad instead of Denver. :\

Radiation exposure will be the nice problem to have in a post-nuclear war America. As someone worried about SkyNet and how nukes will affect you, I recommend you watch Peter Watkins' 1965 documentary, The War Game.
Click to expand...

Buckley AFB would be an extremely high priority target. Cheyenne Mountain, about 80 miles away, would also be targeted by multiple warheads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom