/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5626513]

serious question for you /sci/. What does of gamma radiation can you be exposed to before there are any potential long term health effect or possible birth defects of future children?

[Anonymous No.5626523]

>>5626513
you can probably find out by poking around on the NRC site, maybe here
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/related-info/faq.html
or here
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/08.pdf

[Anonymous No.5626527]

>>5626523
Thanks, I'll go check it out

[Anonymous No.5626529]

>>5626523
[cont]
here's something else that isn't exactly what you're looking for but might be interesting
http://www.nuclear.utah.edu/class_notes/shared/dose_ranges_aug05.pdf

[Anonymous No.5626549]

>>5626529
Interesting. Looks like I better go try to find some dosimeters. Thanks man

[Anonymous No.5626569]

> any potential long term health effect or possible birth defects
> any ... or possible

If you phrase it that way the answer is zero. Radiation regulators use the "linear, no threshold" model for radiation risk. Lots of people think that's overly cautious, but whatever.

More practically, if you expose yourself to a dose that's comparable to or less than the background radiation you receive anyway, it won't make any practical difference to you.

Even more practically, there are standards for maximum permissible exposure per time period (around 0.1 rem per week) and lifetime exposure (dunno what it is) for people who actually work with radioactives in their job: http://www.orcbs.msu.edu/radiation/programs_guidelines/radmanual/19rm_maxexposure.htm

[Anonymous No.5626578]

>>5626569
Well when you put it that way I guess I have to rephrase it.
The information in these charts shows that DOE established a maximum exposure rate for lets say Nuclear Chemical Operators at 500 mrem a year. We could expect that there would not be a much higher likelihood of negative health effects within these limits. Exposure of 10 rem a year leads to a slight increased likelihood of cancer.

Some survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan where exposed to up to 400 rems. (The survived, but most likely got radiation poisoning)

So, try to keep exposure under 10 rem a year got it.

[Anonymous No.5626597]

>>5626513
>does
>not dose

[Anonymous No.5626603]

>>5626597
yeah....we get it....

[Anonymous No.5626623]

I work in a nuke plant. The NRC limits me to 5 rem a year, the industry limits me fo 2 rem a year. Small chronic doses are harmless, or even beneficial to health. An acute dose of anything above 20 rem will start to fuck you up. Anything under and you'll be fine.

[Nuke Guy !hAZB6OI49g No.5628260]

>>5626623
What plant do you work at? I work for the Department of Energy with their nuclear weapons program.

OP, there are no noticeable health issues until you're exposed to 50 rads of flash burst. Why are you looking for a dosimeter? I have several along with three GM counters and a lot of PCs. Here's one of my dosimeters.

[Nuke Guy !hAZB6OI49g No.5628264]

Also, I believe that 450 rads is the LD 50/30 which means 50% of the exposed population will die within 30 days without medical treatment. And OP, your dose rate wouldn't be in "rem," it would be in "rads." Rem is for occupational workers only and rads is for the public.

[Anonymous No.5628274]

>>5628260

mine is way cooler than yours.

clean, fresh, disposable.

[Nuke Guy !hAZB6OI49g No.5628286]

>>5628274
Ahh. Here's my favorite nuclear possession. It's all of my radioactive sources I own.

[Anonymous No.5628310]

You need at least 1 Sv (Sievert) whole-body dose of radiation to start feeling sick and require hospitalization. This is the theoretical point at which cell damage starts to occur that cells cannot recover from.

3 Sv whole-body dose of radiation is the LD50. You get a 3 Sv whole-body dose of radiation there is a 50% chance you will die of radiation sickness.

A 25 Sv whole-body dose of radiation is what you would need to guarantee that you get cancer, but you would die of radiation sickness in a matter of hours/days, ergo it is impossible to give you a dose of radiation that guarantees that you get cancer. If you want to guarantee a cancer, you must spread out 25 Sv of radiation among many people, so that the average dose is low enough so that nobody dies of radiation sickness.

This is known as the linear-hypothesis and is somewhat controversial, but it is the best theory science currently has for the health effects of whole-body doses of radiation to humans.

Pic related, it's a guy that received a dose of about 40 Sv of radiation in a factory accident involving radioactive materials. He'll be dead in a few hours.

[Anonymous No.5628337]

>>5628310
Jesus, that radiation really fucked up that poor cunts eyes!

[Anonymous No.5628349]

>>5628337
they needed smoked glass to block out his lazer eyes long enough to treat him for the rad overdose

[Anonymous No.5628354]

>>5628286

neat, but that shit's weak

get on my level with gamma irradiated barium

[Anonymous No.5628364]

>>5628337
Just found the uncensored version!

[Anonymous No.5628373]

[Anonymous No.5628382]

Currently decommissioning a old nuclear power station and have currently scored 36 μSv over the last 2 weeks, supervisor has just got over 100 in a few months.

That's not interesting though, what is is how corrupt all the higher up the chain people are here. They know none of them will have a job when we finish so they hold us up as much and as often as they can

[Anonymous No.5628663]

>>5628382
sounds about right from what I remember of the Hanford Nuclear Res. HAMTC has everyone by the balls.

[Nuke Guy !hAZB6OI49g No.5628755]

>>5628382
What's your job? I'm an RCT in Oak Ridge. That sounds pretty fun.

[Anonymous No.5628787]

>>5628373
This image is very nicely done.

[Anonymous No.5629251]

>>5628286
I that radioactive pizza?

[Anonymous No.5629334]

>>5628260
I work in Ops for First Energy at the Perry Plant outside Cleveland. You know, the one First Energy Plant that didn't almost blow the head off the reactor vessel.