Talk:Ionizing radiation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] NPOV tag
I added an NPOV tag to the Radiation level section because it appears that the jurry is out on radiation hormesis. I think it's important to first stress that (1) The National Accadamies of Sciences, BEIR VII report (2) The US congresses National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and (3) The United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of atomic radiation (UNSCEAR) all agree that linear no threshold is the appropriate dose response model for the time being. Could there be more scientific consensious? I also think a lot of this material belongs over in the main article on radiation hormesisPdbailey 20:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New Radiation Warning Symbol
On 15th February IAEA and the ISO launched NEW Radiation Warning Symbol. Heres the link:
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/radiationsymbol.html
(Old one was better imo ;p - this one looks like it says: Beware of huge fans and pirate attacks - no matter if you run away they will get ya!)
- When I look at it, it appeared to say: beams emanating from a point source - deadly - flee. A lot better than a propeller blade - at least that's what children thought it looked like when they were asked.
- The number of people that have not differentiated between ionising radiation and other uses for the radiation symbol (such as lasers) is not trivial and lives *have* been lost.
- When is someone going to add this new symbol to the main article? Mattabat 11:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- this new symbol is only for big sources that could be lethal, so it doesn't replace the old one. Also, we can post the new symbol but need to know its copyright. I'm not sure how to find this out. Pdbailey 03:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hormesis
I think the hormesis section here and the linked page should be merged... If I do it it will ... sland the POV in a way I don't think the author will appreciate. Pdbailey 04:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The statement in Ionizing radiation is apparently based on the BEIR III Report (BEIR stands for Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation and is the basis for radiation exposure limits). BEIR VII is now out, and the results are briefly summarized in [1] - in which "LNT" stands for "Linear model, No Threshold" (in short, no hormesis). Simesa 02:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
About the sentence "[...]this phenomenon is termed radiation hormesis and has not been shown in humans (see below).". Cited UNSCEAR report mentions that hormesis-related effects are observed in humans, although not for all individuals. Since this is by now actively investigated process, I suggest to change this into less firm statement. I will do it if there's no comment on this for a time. (przemg), 16:36, 8 January 2006 (GMT)
[edit] Physics request
Can we have more about the physics? I know that ionizing radiation will cause electrically charged objects to lose their charge. I think because the ionizing radiation ionizes air near the charged object, which then attracts whichever particles are opposite. (Electroscopes being used to detect radiation, for instance.) Specifically, I am wondering about a device patented by Tesla that is claimed to collect energy from ionizing radiation hitting a metal plate and charging it with positive charge (knocking electrons into the air?) See Talk:Solar cell#Tesla. - Omegatron 00:18, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ionizing radiation is only a type of particle radiation ??
This entry starts out by saying 'Ionizing radiation is a type of particle radiation'. If you look up 'Radiation' in Wiki, 'particle radiation' and 'electromagnetic radiation' are two different things. Xrays are electromagnetic radiation and they are ionizing... which seems to contradict.
- X-rays are EM waves and particles (photons), and will display the behavior of one or the other depending on context. See Wave-particle duality. -nbach 03:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mutated conceptuses?
'aborting most mutated conceptuses': is this a misprint or does it mean something?--HPaul 20:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, 155.37.238.45, for introducing clarity! --HPaul 19:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discrepancy
Discrepancy:
- 'However, visible light is so common that molecules that are ionized by it....'
vs:
- 'The elements with the lowest and highest ionization potential are cesium (3.89 eV)...'
.....
'Visible light corresponds to photons with energies from 1.77 eV (λ = 700.6 nm) to 3.10 eV (λ = 400 nm) and are thus non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation.'
I know one is talking about elements, and the other molecules, but there is no indication (in the article) that any molecules have an ionization potential of less then 3.89 eV. The only molecule mentioned is: 'PMMA has an ionization potential of 8.1 eV.' 71.199.123.24 09:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- It also reads, "Examples include photographic film and some molecules involved in photosynthesis." The photosynthesis section doesn't have the cycle, so I can't name the molecules or their first ionization potential without a bit more research. Pdbailey 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Broken Links
Following links are broken:
"120 30-year exposure, Ural mountains, lower cancer mortality rate[21]" and
"500 USA NRC occupational whole skin, limb skin, or single organ exposure limit 30-year exposure, Ural mountains, (exposed population lower
cancer mortality rate) [25]"
Ural mountains are not mentioned in the article. Can't find replacement link. Remove/Find replacement? Slidersv 22:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] smoking
The relation between smoking and radon is not supported by any link or citations. (This is out of wiki style.)
I can't see where you are taking about. Please add a fact tag where you want a reference. Here is an article that's a little more detailed [2] Pdbailey 04:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] He and CO2
I test neutron tubes. We use He³ and CO2 as the gases. I have notice that if i test the same tube on different days my neutron counts and my gamma rejection are not the same. My queston is, why are my results different? Does He³ and CO2 need curing time?
[edit] removed one exposure level
I removed the following:
15 /a -- Taiwan cobalt-60 10-year exposure, 97% lower cancer than population[3]
because the Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons is included on quackwatch's non-recomended periodicals [4]. Pdbailey 19:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
