Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: How much radiation is dangerous?

  1. #1 How much radiation is dangerous? 
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    I was wondering at what level of radiation (in whatever it is measured in) does it become dangerous for the human body to absorb? For instance if it was on a geigometer what reading would it be for you to think, 'Thats it thats far enough'?


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    The reading on the radiation meter would be the dose rate, but the dose is more important in determining health effects. In other words, it depends on how long you are going to stay in that radiation field.

    Here is a web site that will give you some idea of the relative health risks of various radiation doses, measured in millirems.

    http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiati...h-effects.html


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Thanks Harold.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    All radiation is dangerous. What changes with increasing dose rates and doasages is the magnitude of that danger.

    I have read that there is some evidence that small levels of radiation are beneficial to organisms. I do not knwo how well accepted or demonstrated this is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    All radiation is dangerous. What changes with increasing dose rates and doasages is the magnitude of that danger.

    I have read that there is some evidence that small levels of radiation are beneficial to organisms. I do not knwo how well accepted or demonstrated this is.
    I would say it is not accepted at all, at least in the US as far as determining occupational radiation exposure is concerned. There is very little data to isolate the effects of low levels of radiation from any other factors that may contribute to cancer. It's not really known if there is any adverse effect. They just take data from acute exposures like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then extrapolate (interpolate?) that linearly. It is assumed that any ionizing event has equal chance of causing a cancerous mutation. This I think is very conservative because the body does have a capacity to repair damaged cells.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    It is perhaps illustrative of the low regard in which the concept is held that Wikipedia has this to say on their article on The Low Level Radiation Campaign.

    This article has many problems, not least of which is the copying from other websites, poor style and tone, and the lack of any proof of notability. This article should be deleted, and if someone feels the LLRC are notable they can start a new article from scratch as this is beyond salvaging.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    It is perhaps illustrative of the low regard in which the concept is held that Wikipedia has this to say on their article on The Low Level Radiation Campaign.

    This article has many problems, not least of which is the copying from other websites, poor style and tone, and the lack of any proof of notability. This article should be deleted, and if someone feels the LLRC are notable they can start a new article from scratch as this is beyond salvaging.
    I read that Wikipedia article and didn't think it was all that bad, as it did present both sides of the argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    It is perhaps illustrative of the low regard in which the concept is held that Wikipedia has this to say on their article on The Low Level Radiation Campaign.

    This article has many problems, not least of which is the copying from other websites, poor style and tone, and the lack of any proof of notability. This article should be deleted, and if someone feels the LLRC are notable they can start a new article from scratch as this is beyond salvaging.

    There is and was statistical proof that certain types of welders. Those that actually practiced a certain level of safety, used quality equipment and understood their equipment had lived healthier lives then the people in the same plant with them.

    However I admit that it is probably not optimum. However today who is going to live an optimum life style. You just cannot. Cell phones alone, make it almost impossible to live without radiation.

    The welders in Grumman were found to be very oddly free of cancer. Even skin cancer.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •