Radiation-Monitoring Reveals Interesting Data

[zoobyshoe]

Here's an article by a woman who obtained a radiation monitor and noted it's readings at various places she went:

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/radMonData.html

I have a question about this passage:

Rick and I did some traveling and took our monitors with us. In West Virginia, out on the open highway, we saw. our lowest reading: 2 cpm. On another trip, we went to Oak Ridge, TN, each of us driving separate vehicles. As we compared readings along the way, Rick's readings were inevitably higher, even when we switched Radalerts. Eventually he determined that the elevated readings in his truck were caused by a U.S. Navy-issued clock that he had owned for years.

Although the clock did not have luminescent dials or numbers, the Radalert would shoot up over 100 cpm when it was placed in close proximity to the clock. Rick sequestered the clock.

Why would this clock be so radioactive?

I am also baffled by this revelation:

My biggest surprise of radiation levels was on a flight from Atlanta to Philadelphia. Radalert readings ranged from 270-330 cpm until we started to descend. A flight attendant told me that radiation levels are even higher on flights to Europe.

Oh a second flight from Atlanta to Philadelphia, this time at night, I was even more surprised by the Radalert readings. For forty minutes, Radalert readings ranged from 278-448 cpm. For seven consecutive minutes, readings were above 400 cpm. In forty minutes I'd been exposed to 15,240 rads -- the same amount I would receive in 15 hours in my apartment.

Why is it so radioactive in the sky?

I started out doing a bit of research into the radioactivity of common food, due to my accidental discovery of the banana equivalent dose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

This lead to having to sort out units of radiation:
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/measuring-radiation.html

That site contains the following mysterious comparisons:

For practical purposes, 1 R (exposure) = 1 rad (absorbed dose) = 1 rem or 1000 mrem (dose equivalent).

Note that a measure given in Ci tells the radioactivity of a substance, while a measure in rem (or mrem) tells the amount of energy that a radioactive source deposits in living tissue. For example, a person would receive a dose equivalent of 1 mrem from anyone of the following activities:

• 3 days of living in Atlanta
• 2 days of living in Denver
• 1 year of watching television (on average)
• 1 year of wearing a watch with a luminous dial
• 1 coast-to-coast airline flight
• 1 year living next door to a normally operating nuclear power plant

What's mysterious is why 2 days in Denver should equal a whole year next door to a nuclear power plant. It required looking into. The answer is startling:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...ophe-youve-probably-never-heard-about/261959/

Anyway, I'm not sure why a non-illuminated clock should be so radioactive, nor why the radiation is so extremely high in commercial jets.

 

[Borek]

Why is it so radioactive in the sky?

Cosmic radiation, you are not protected by 10 km of air. Known thing that pilots get much higher doses than surface dwellers. And doses at the sea level are lower than in Denver - for the same reason.

 

[russ_watters]

What's mysterious is why 2 days in Denver should equal a whole year next door to a nuclear power plant. It required looking into. The answer is startling:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...ophe-youve-probably-never-heard-about/261959/

...nor why the radiation is so extremely high in commercial jets.

You missed the real connection there: it is more radioactive in Denver than next to most nuclear plants because Denver is at 5000 feet higher elevation than most nuclear plants. Neither nuclear plants (from outside) nor jets emit radiation.

 

[f95toli]

Note also there are many places in the world where the radiation levels are much higher than average because of the abundance of radioactive elements. The most famous example of this is radon gas (which can become a real health risk if it leaks into e.g. basements), but there are also areas where you can literally find rock on the ground with relatively high amount of e.g. uranium in them and they will be (mildly) radioactive. The west coast of Sweden is an example of such an area (the "radiation safety" part of the atomic physics course I took as an undergraduate was taught by a slightly mad radio-chemist. He had a collection of such rocks that he had found near the university)
.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Here's an article by a woman who obtained a radiation monitor and noted it's readings at various places she went

And doesn't have a clue on how to read it. To wit: "In forty minutes I'd been exposed to 15,240 rads -- the same amount I would receive in 15 hours in my apartment." If that were true, she'd be immediately incapacitated and dead within a day or two.

 

[ZapperZ]

Why do I have a feeling that this device hasn't been properly calibrated?

Besides, cps is not a meaningful measure of radiation since one can set an instrument with varying level of sensitivity that would even register dark counts.

This, btw, is a perfect illustration where just because the general public can get access to "data", it doesn't mean they know what to do with them or how to analyze/interpret them correctly.

Zz.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

XKCD has a great chart on relative values of radiation, it includes some interesting everyday examples like flying:
https://xkcd.com/radiation/

 

[Vanadium 50]

properly calibrated

I don't think it's even at that level. I think she doesn't know how to read it.

 

[Bandersnatch]

XKCD has a great chart on relative values of radiation, it includes some interesting everyday examples like flying:
https://xkcd.com/radiation/

I like how he points out that the only kind of a phone that produces ionising radiation is the 'bananaphone'.

 

[gleem]

For meaningful dose estimates one needs a calibrations for a specific radiation type. A reading from any instrument by itself is almost meaningless and at best can be used to compare radiation intensities of a specific type of radiation. Radiation monitoring and dosimetry is an extremely difficult activity. One must know the detectors sensitivities to various radiations, the type of radiation including its energy, the conversion factors from radiation fluence measurements ( i.e. detector corrected readings) to use in the absorbed dose calculations and finally a assignment of dose equivalence quality factor ( an estimate of the relative biological effect a specific type of radiation has on living tissue) for the final estimate of the biological effect.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Cosmic radiation explains Denver and flying. What explains Atlanta and the clock?

 

[Borek]

As it was already said in the thread level of background radiation in different places is different. Doesn't mean that's the exact reason in this particular case, but that's enough for me to be not surprised.

 

[russ_watters]

Cosmic radiation explains Denver and flying. What explains Atlanta...

It explains Denver vs Atlanta. There are no places with zero background radiation, so you can just compare levels in one place to another. The altitude explains the difference.

... and the clock?

Having no idea what the history of the clock is, there is no way to know why it is registering what it is.

 

[Vanadium 50]

All evidence is that she doesn't know how to use the instrument. For all we know, she has it on "battery check" mode. Trying to explain measurements by someone who doesn't know how to make them is futile.

 

[dipole]

I would imagine the composition of bedrock also matters. A large part of the heat trapped in the Earth's crust is due or was due to radioactive decay - while small, certain kinds of rock will naturally exhibit more or less radioactivity.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It explains Denver vs Atlanta. There are no places with zero background radiation, so you can just compare levels in one place to another. The altitude explains the difference.

But from the comparisons, I glean that both Denver and Atlanta are high in background radiation. 2 days in Denver = 3 days in Atlanta = one coast to coast flight.

Here's a map whereby you can compare the background radiation levels of US cities:
http://radiationnetwork.com/

Atlanta is high in elevation at 1,050 feet above sea level, but Denver is very much higher at 5,280 feet above sea level. So, I'm wondering if the buffering properties of the atmosphere against cosmic rays are perhaps non-linear in some way I don't understand, or if it's explained by something else, say, the soil there being more than usually radioactive like f95toli's west coast of Sweden. Or like the beaches at Guarapari, Brazil.

Having no idea what the history of the clock is, there is no way to know why it is registering what it is.

My question about the clock has to do with not understanding the extent to which non-radioactive things can be rendered radioactive. I assume the clock is steel, maybe with some brass. They mention it came from the Navy. If this were the clock that was hung over the nuclear reactor in a nuclear powered ship, for example, would that explain it? Can iron, copper, tin, be rendered radioactive by exposure to naturally radioactive elements?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I would imagine the composition of bedrock also matters. A large part of the heat trapped in the Earth's crust is due or was due to radioactive decay - while small, certain kinds of rock will naturally exhibit more or less radioactivity.

Ryan's chart reveals that living in a stone, brick, or concrete building for a year is 3.5 times the exposure of a chest x-ray. A matter of the density of those materials?

 

[dipole]

Ryan's chart reveals that living in a stone, brick, or concrete building for a year is 3.5 times the exposure of a chest x-ray. A matter of the density of those materials?

Brick/stone/concrete will contain traces of radioactive ore, such as uranium and thorium ores.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

Occasionally radioactive materials get recycled into new metal. This might explain a watch (or other metal object) with a higher than average radiation count. (Though I get the watch in this story checked by someone who knew what they were doing before calling the police.)

I want to point out that radiation is natural. People fear it like they fear witchcraft. It's invisible and they don't understand it. But it's not that dangerous except in very large doses (or if eaten).

We should monitor radiation collectively (like at college physics departments for example) because accidents do happen, but running in terror is not called for.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Here's an interesting video on the subject. This guy always makes good videos.

 

[russ_watters]

But from the comparisons, I glean that both Denver and Atlanta are high in background radiation.

What gives you that idea? What does "high" even mean in this context?

2 days in Denver = 3 days in Atlanta = one coast to coast flight.

In other words, 14x the dose rate in a plane than in Atlanta. Ok...so what?

Here's a map whereby you can compare the background radiation levels of US cities:
http://radiationnetwork.com/

So, the values are from 6-67 and at 40 Atlanta looks somewhat above average. Ok...?

Atlanta is high in elevation at 1,050 feet above sea level, but Denver is very much higher at 5,280 feet above sea level. So, I'm wondering if the buffering properties of the atmosphere against cosmic rays are perhaps non-linear in some way...

Certainly they are non-linear, but the biggest problem may be that you are looking at the problem upside-down. It isn't how much atmosphere that is below you that matters, it is how much that is above you! I didn't know the numbers off the top of my head, so I looked it up: at 1000 feet, about 97% of the atmosphere is above you whereas at 5000 feet, about 83% is above you.

But still, that doesn't necessarily directly relate to the attenuation, nor does it have anything to do with how much radiation comes from things around you. I see nothing shocking about this information, but it would be extremely difficult to try to figure out exactly why it is what it is.

My question about the clock has to do with not understanding the extent to which non-radioactive things can be rendered radioactive. I assume the clock is steel, maybe with some brass. They mention it came from the Navy. If this were the clock that was hung over the nuclear reactor in a nuclear powered ship, for example, would that explain it? Can iron, copper, tin, be rendered radioactive by exposure to naturally radioactive elements?

Not over, but in, yes: non-radiactive materials can be made radioactive by exposing them to radiation. They can also pick-up materials (dust and other residue) and take it with them.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Occasionally radioactive materials get recycled into new metal. This might explain a watch (or other metal object) with a higher than average radiation count.

This makes a lot of sense, especially in conjunction with the military.

I want to point out that radiation is natural.

Yes, but, that is a really bad argument for the safety of anything. Hungry wild tigers are natural, and so is arsenic.

What gives you that idea? What does "high" even mean in this context?

High compared to other American cities.

So, the values are from 6-67 and at 40 Atlanta looks somewhat above average. Ok...?

The highest reading in the US is in the vicinity of Denver at 64. Two other places in Colorado are at 48. Atlanta is also at 48 (not 40). These two cities are high in background radiation compared to other U.S. cities.

It isn't how much atmosphere that is below you that matters, it is how much that is above you!

Obivously! I can't conceive of why you think I thought otherwise.

I didn't know the numbers off the top of my head, so I looked it up: at 1000 feet, about 97% of the atmosphere is above you whereas at 5000 feet, about 83% is above you.

But still, that doesn't necessarily directly relate to the attenuation, nor does it have anything to do with how much radiation comes from things around you. I see nothing shocking about this information, but it would be extremely difficult to try to figure out exactly why it is what it is.

I'm curious as to why Atlanta's reading is as high as it is. In Denver's case, it seems completely explained by it's altitude. In Atlanta's case, I take it, you don't know the answer. That's O.K.

Not over, but in, yes: non-radiactive materials can be made radioactive by exposing them to radiation. They can also pick-up materials (dust and other residue) and take it with them.

OK, thanks. The latter seems more likely, then. I can't think of a reason they'd put a clock in a nuclear reactor.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This makes a lot of sense, especially in conjunction with the military.

No, I am afraid it doesn't. If an object is in a position where there is enough radiation to activate it - make it radioactive - or contaminate it rather than just expose it, it must be surveyed before disposal. If it is "measurably above background" it becomes nuclear waste. Since (having electronic components) this is already hazardous waste, it now falls in the category of "mixed waste". If you think regulations for hazardous waste are onerous, you should see them for mixed waste. If something is mixed waste, they don't just say "Sure sailor, take it home".

Second, the map you linked to says:

Readings not Equalized means the Monitoring Stations are broadcasting the raw radiation count from their Geiger counters, without adjustment for different count rates existing between various Geiger counter designs. For instance, models built around a "Pancake" (see Map Legend) style of Geiger-Mueller tube typically have about a 3 times count rate over Standard tubed models, so their readings in CPM would be expected to average about 3 times higher, anyway.

So these numbers are not comparable. Yet they continue to be argued and compared.

Every measurement in this thread is, at best, troubled - if it's not obviously wrong. Yet we are happily treating them as gospel. Is this wise? Is this even science?

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

No, I am afraid it doesn't. If an object is in a position where there is enough radiation to activate it - make it radioactive - or contaminate it rather than just expose it, it must be surveyed before disposal. If it is "measurably above background" it becomes nuclear waste. Since (having electronic components) this is already hazardous waste, it now falls in the category of "mixed waste". If you think regulations for hazardous waste are onerous, you should see them for mixed waste. If something is mixed waste, they don't just say "Sure sailor, take it home".

People don't always obey the law. Most metal is now worked in developing countries. In many cases environmental protection laws are honored in the breach.

There have been clear cases where radioactive cores from x-ray machines ("lost" or "orphan" source accidents) have been melted down into batches of stock metal. It is not unreasonable to assume some of these haven't been discovered yet.

Few people check their consumer products for radiation.

In this case it is at least equally likely the radiation detector was misused though. Still if it is radioactive, the source must be found lest there be tons of unknown radioactive consumer goods silently killing people.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Has the world gone mad? You have someone obviously not dead going around making radiation measurements that, if true, are many, many times the fatal dose. And faced with a conflict, that is what you believe?

I am dumbfounded that this is still being discussed. I am sorry I tried to inject any science in this.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, but, that is a really bad argument for the safety of anything. Hungry wild tigers are natural, and so is arsenic.

No one has said anything at all about safety in this thread, but it it seems you are trying to imply or are perceiving something about safety based on all of this? That's a really, really bad idea. None of what we are looking at has been connected to any safety standards, so it says nothing whatsoever about safety. And even worse, as V50 pointed out, your first source isn't even a quality source and the data can't be trusted.

Your comparison to arsenic is quite apt though: when sensors got good enough to start detecting arsenic in drinking water and it started turning-up in the parts-per-billion range, people went nuts, for no reason. Don't let your fear of *radiation* get the better of you here.

High compared to other American cities.

Ok...again, so what? Should we build lead houses in Atlanta and Colorado? Evacuate them? None of this has been connected to any safety standards.

The highest reading in the US is in the vicinity of Denver at 64. Two other places in Colorado are at 48. Atlanta is also at 48 (not 40). These two cities are high in background radiation compared to other U.S. cities.

Looks like none of us noticed the data is dynamic. What I quoted were what they were when I first looked at them. The've changed again since them. In addition to V50's point about Geiger counter count rates: it says that some may have count rates 3x higher than others. Colorado and Atlanta use the same, faster count rate type, but several (notably in Florida) use the slower type. So they are actually a lot closer to the national average than the readings you see on the screen would imply.

Obivously! I can't conceive of why you think I thought otherwise.

You said "Denver is very much higher", and appeared to express surprise at how close the numbers were to Atlanta's, which implied you thought there should be a much wider difference due to much more atmospheric attentuation in Atlanta.

I'm curious as to why Atlanta's reading is as high as it is. In Denver's case, it seems completely explained by it's altitude. In Atlanta's case, I take it, you don't know the answer. That's O.K.

Higher than average for the country? Maybe. "High"? No, I don't think I would say that (you shouldn't ever use that word alone), but no, nobody here can give precise reasons for any of this. I guess I would chalk it up to the multitude of potential differences from one site to another.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

Has the world gone mad? You have someone obviously not dead going around making radiation measurements that, if true, are many, many times the fatal dose. And faced with a conflict, that is what you believe?

I am dumbfounded that this is still being discussed. I am sorry I tried to inject any science in this.

We're not mad (in either form). We are polite. We did not call the OP an idiot for his obvious misuse of the testing equipment. We did not call him a liar for trolling on the internet. We did not use random swear words to add to the flame level.

We are all smart enough to understand that people make mistakes. Sometimes they are rude, make stupid statements, or even lie.

Instead we addressed issues.

It is likely the OP was using a geiger counter and didn't know how to adjust the attenuation. Thus his measurements are nearly meaningless. There might be some slight validity to comparing two sources with each other -- if he didn't twist any knobs between the measurements, but that's about it.

It is also possible he is a "no nuke" nutter who is fear mongering.

On that note: I was doing some investment advising and wanted to check on the nuclear industry. So I got a temp job working "turn around" at the Limerick, PA plant. While I was there (4 weeks) some nutter managed to get in (also as a temp worker) and toss some radioactive waste in the trash. He then called the local media and claimed the plant regularly threw nuclear waste in the local landfill. (Luckily, like most such waste, there was no actual radioactivity in it.) Bureaucratic fur flew.

Yes, there are nutters who go around and destroy the environment in order to save it. I pulled all client funds from the nuclear industry not due to the technology, but because of the insanity.

It is not polite to say any of this sort of thing though. We do (and should) assume good will on the part of posters. otherwise we will never get anything done.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The OP didn't make the measurement. The OP posted links to two sources that are clearly unreliable, and yet everyone is trying to explain them.

 

[Dale]

OK. Everything useful to say about this topic has been said and now this discussion is just degenerating.

FYI, this is why PF has standards on acceptable references.