normiss 622
Recommended Posts
normiss 622
Excellent, thanks bro.
Calvin19 0
An opinion piece by Ropeik.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/opinion/fear-vs-radiation-the-mismatch.html
-SPACE-
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/opinion/fear-vs-radiation-the-mismatch.html
-SPACE-
That is a really good radiation sheet thank you. It helps to understand the whole seivert, micro-seivert... But what about dispersion and location and distance? Is it true that the further radiation travels the less impact it has? The sun can still burn you even from far away and with clouds. Distance doesn't seem to matter, just sunscreen.
Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."
Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."
Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."
NoShitThereIWasThat is a really good radiation sheet thank you. It helps to understand the whole seivert, micro-seivert... But what about dispersion and location and distance? Is it true that the further radiation travels the less impact it has? The sun can still burn you even from far away and with clouds. Distance doesn't seem to matter, just sunscreen.
If a guy with a handgun is shooting out randomly, do you feel safer 100 feet away than you would 10 ft away? Yes, the further away you are from radiation, the less likely the alpha/beta particles are to hit you.
The sun is a hell of a lot bigger than the Fukoshima reactor. A hell of a lot more particles. Though the skin burning comes from ultraviolet light, rather that what we are referring to in this context as radiation.
turtlespeed 212
kelpdiver***That is a really good radiation sheet thank you. It helps to understand the whole seivert, micro-seivert... But what about dispersion and location and distance? Is it true that the further radiation travels the less impact it has? The sun can still burn you even from far away and with clouds. Distance doesn't seem to matter, just sunscreen.
If a guy with a handgun is shooting out randomly, do you feel safer 100 feet away than you would 10 ft away? Yes, the further away you are from radiation, the less likely the alpha/beta particles are to hit you.
The sun is a hell of a lot bigger than the Fukoshima reactor. A hell of a lot more particles. Though the skin burning comes from ultraviolet light, rather that what we are referring to in this context as radiation.
I believe it is actually Ultraviolet Radiation. Unless you are very gifted, UVR is just above Xrays and just BELOW the visual spectrum, hence not light.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
From NASA:
========
Ultraviolet (UV) light has shorter wavelengths than visible light. Though these waves are invisible to the human eye, some insects, like bumblebees, can see them.
Scientists have divided the ultraviolet part of the spectrum into three regions: the near ultraviolet, the far ultraviolet, and the extreme ultraviolet. The three regions are distinguished by how energetic the ultraviolet radiation is, and by the "wavelength" of the ultraviolet light, which is related to energy.
The near ultraviolet, abbreviated NUV, is the light closest to optical or visible light. The extreme ultraviolet, abbreviated EUV, is the ultraviolet light closest to X-rays, and is the most energetic of the three types. The far ultraviolet, abbreviated FUV, lies between the near and extreme ultraviolet regions. It is the least explored of the three regions.
Our Sun emits light at all the different wavelengths in electromagnetic spectrum, but it is ultraviolet waves that are responsible for causing our sunburns.
============
========
Ultraviolet (UV) light has shorter wavelengths than visible light. Though these waves are invisible to the human eye, some insects, like bumblebees, can see them.
Scientists have divided the ultraviolet part of the spectrum into three regions: the near ultraviolet, the far ultraviolet, and the extreme ultraviolet. The three regions are distinguished by how energetic the ultraviolet radiation is, and by the "wavelength" of the ultraviolet light, which is related to energy.
The near ultraviolet, abbreviated NUV, is the light closest to optical or visible light. The extreme ultraviolet, abbreviated EUV, is the ultraviolet light closest to X-rays, and is the most energetic of the three types. The far ultraviolet, abbreviated FUV, lies between the near and extreme ultraviolet regions. It is the least explored of the three regions.
Our Sun emits light at all the different wavelengths in electromagnetic spectrum, but it is ultraviolet waves that are responsible for causing our sunburns.
============
turtlespeed 212
billvonFrom NASA:
========
Ultraviolet (UV) light has shorter wavelengths than visible light. Though these waves are invisible to the human eye, some insects, like bumblebees, can see them.
Scientists have divided the ultraviolet part of the spectrum into three regions: the near ultraviolet, the far ultraviolet, and the extreme ultraviolet. The three regions are distinguished by how energetic the ultraviolet radiation is, and by the "wavelength" of the ultraviolet light, which is related to energy.
The near ultraviolet, abbreviated NUV, is the light closest to optical or visible light. The extreme ultraviolet, abbreviated EUV, is the ultraviolet light closest to X-rays, and is the most energetic of the three types. The far ultraviolet, abbreviated FUV, lies between the near and extreme ultraviolet regions. It is the least explored of the three regions.
Our Sun emits light at all the different wavelengths in electromagnetic spectrum, but it is ultraviolet waves that are responsible for causing our sunburns.
============
Ooooh Neat . . .
Also from NASA,
========
QuoteThe sun radiates energy in a wide range of wavelengths, most of which are invisible to human eyes. The shorter the wavelength, the more energetic the radiation, and the greater the potential for harm. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface is in wavelengths between 290 and 400 nm (nanometers, or billionths of a meter). This is shorter than wavelengths of visible light, which are 400 to 700 nm.============
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
turtlespeed
I believe it is actually Ultraviolet Radiation. Unless you are very gifted, UVR is just above Xrays and just BELOW the visual spectrum, hence not light.
all light is radiation. But the term is also conventionally used to refer to the alpha and beta particle emissions from decaying nuclear isotopes.
Calvin19 0
NoShitThereIWasThat is a really good radiation sheet thank you. It helps to understand the whole seivert, micro-seivert... But what about dispersion and location and distance? Is it true that the further radiation travels the less impact it has? The sun can still burn you even from far away and with clouds. Distance doesn't seem to matter, just sunscreen.
The last article I posted here was an "opinion piece" but it was written by a guy who makes a living assessing risk of all types. He teaches for Harvard and writes about cool stuff.
"Radiation" is extremely complicated to predict how much will actually get into your system. But, generally, it travels and stays with heavy metals and dust. It likes to concentrate in biological systems as with eddies in current, etc.
Yes, the further -radiation- travels the less energy it has. But you may be mixing up a few things. "Emitted radiation" follows the inverse square law meaning the intensity of the radiation decreases to the square of the distance.
What the "polluted" radiation worries are is from close-contact with radioactive substances. The inverse square law would still apply here, but the worry is more that people ingest or touch/live in proximity to the radioactive source. You could hold a vile of the crappy water around the defunct power plant and have no adverse effects, but if you swim in or DRINK that water is could be bad after a while depending on how much you are exposed to.
Radiation exposure is just that, exposure. It is a product of type of radiation, intensity, AND duration of exposure.
If you drink glowing* water your exposure to that radiation is for as long as it is in your system. (This is why certain foods are good to eat while there is a chance of radiation exposure, those foods bind to or absorb the particles that are radioactive and your body then spits those out). Also why there are short shifts in certain rescue operations that involve dangerous radiation.
*not all radiation visibly 'glows' and not all glowing water is bad. ;-P
-SPACE-
Calvin19 0
Calvin says some good stuff.
Radiation is just energy. We are exposed to it through microwaves, ultravioiet, infrared and even radio waves.
When many people hear of radiation, they think of "ionizing radiation." That's radiation with enough energy to break electrons off of atoms. X-rays are the most common. But when people think of a glowing light, that's ionizing radiation they're thinking of. The radiation can rip apart the atoms and molecules in the atmosphere - and in a human body.
Look at some of the isotopes that are risky. Iodine-131 has a half-life of about 8 days. Short half-lives are bad (picture burning a fireplace log over the course of an hour versus a course of a few seconds. The former not so bad but the latter devastating). That half life makes it nasty, but also makes it much less risky the further it goes. If it takes a month to get here, we've got 6% left from where it started. Which is good - the further away the better.
Then there's Cesium-137. It's got a half-life of 30 years - not good but not really bad. It does get rather easily absorbed by the body. I've already discussed polonium. Strontium also goes to bones.
The dreaded Plutonium-239? It's pretty damned stable - 25k year halflife. Compared to iodine-131?
Other should look at the differences between alpha, beta and gamma emitters. Those make differences in risks, as well. Example - Polonium-210, which was used to assassinate a Russian dissident a few years ago and is suspected of killing Arafat. Alpha emitter. Half life of about 140 days. Is fatal in a small dose. Takes three weeks to kill, but will kill.
Now imagine something with a half-life of 8 days (iodine 131 - a gamma emitter).
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Radiation is just energy. We are exposed to it through microwaves, ultravioiet, infrared and even radio waves.
When many people hear of radiation, they think of "ionizing radiation." That's radiation with enough energy to break electrons off of atoms. X-rays are the most common. But when people think of a glowing light, that's ionizing radiation they're thinking of. The radiation can rip apart the atoms and molecules in the atmosphere - and in a human body.
Look at some of the isotopes that are risky. Iodine-131 has a half-life of about 8 days. Short half-lives are bad (picture burning a fireplace log over the course of an hour versus a course of a few seconds. The former not so bad but the latter devastating). That half life makes it nasty, but also makes it much less risky the further it goes. If it takes a month to get here, we've got 6% left from where it started. Which is good - the further away the better.
Then there's Cesium-137. It's got a half-life of 30 years - not good but not really bad. It does get rather easily absorbed by the body. I've already discussed polonium. Strontium also goes to bones.
The dreaded Plutonium-239? It's pretty damned stable - 25k year halflife. Compared to iodine-131?
Other should look at the differences between alpha, beta and gamma emitters. Those make differences in risks, as well. Example - Polonium-210, which was used to assassinate a Russian dissident a few years ago and is suspected of killing Arafat. Alpha emitter. Half life of about 140 days. Is fatal in a small dose. Takes three weeks to kill, but will kill.
Now imagine something with a half-life of 8 days (iodine 131 - a gamma emitter).
My wife is hotter than your wife.
skybill 18
Hi Jen,
'just wondering, has anyone come out with a "Skydive Fukushima" T-shirt yet?? Anyone still have/remember the "Skydive Chernoybyl" T-shirt??
'just wondering, has anyone come out with a "Skydive Fukushima" T-shirt yet?? Anyone still have/remember the "Skydive Chernoybyl" T-shirt??
SCR-2034, SCS-680
III%,
Deli-out
III%,
Deli-out
OHCHUTE 0
OK men, line up over there on the ship and look in that direction. We're going to do an experiment. Hold on tight. This will be over in a few minutes.
50,000 men were a part of the experiment. This 80 year old lived to tell about it.
[url]http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/sep/21/atomic-vet-recalls/[url]
50,000 men were a part of the experiment. This 80 year old lived to tell about it.
[url]http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/sep/21/atomic-vet-recalls/[url]
Calvin19 0
This is just adorable. Opinion article by extremely biased author. (article has no citations, and her figures are from other non science articles written by herself of her fellow advocates)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/opinion/radiation-fears-are-real.html?_r=0
-SPACE-
Quote
"The writer is the pediatrician, author and antinuclear advocate."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/opinion/radiation-fears-are-real.html?_r=0
-SPACE-
I mentioned caldicott in this thread. You know her group was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize? This is a person whose career was made on public fear and panic. The same person who didn't give a rat's ass about the "humanitarian disaster" of an earthquake and tsunami.
Yes. I have a big problem with fear mongers.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Yes. I have a big problem with fear mongers.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Calvin19 0
http://livefreelivenatural.com/celebrated-physician-fukushima-humanity-brink-possible-worldwide-nuclear-holocaust/
"I am not an alarmist"
Guys. The guy is a DOCTOR. Of course whatever he says is going to be correct.
And another scientifically accurate, documented, and well written article.
http://www.dw.de/scientists-downplay-fukushima-radiation-hazards/a-17182633
"I am not an alarmist"
Guys. The guy is a DOCTOR. Of course whatever he says is going to be correct.
And another scientifically accurate, documented, and well written article.
http://www.dw.de/scientists-downplay-fukushima-radiation-hazards/a-17182633
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites