Radiation Levels: Inverse Square Law Outcome at 6m

  • Thread starter Thread starter nonphysical
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Levels Radiation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of the inverse square law to radiation levels, specifically calculating the radiation level at a distance of 6 meters from a point source. The initial radiation level is 400 mGy/hr at 2 meters, leading to a conclusion that at 6 meters, the radiation level remains 400 mGy/hr but is distributed over an area of 36 m². The participants clarify that while the radiation dose per unit area decreases as the distance increases, the total radiation remains constant. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding how radiation intensity diminishes with distance squared.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the inverse square law in physics
  • Knowledge of radiation measurement units (mGy/hr)
  • Familiarity with concepts of radiation dose distribution
  • Basic principles of radiation shielding and area calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical derivation of the inverse square law in radiation
  • Learn about radiation shielding calculations and half-value layers (HVL)
  • Explore the implications of radiation dose distribution over varying distances
  • Investigate practical applications of radiation safety in medical and industrial settings
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, radiation safety officers, medical professionals, and anyone involved in radiation measurement and shielding practices.

nonphysical
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Using the inverse square law could anyone tell me what the outcome of this problem is?
If the radiation level is 400mGy/hr at 2m from the point radiation source, what will be the radiation level at 6m?
I figured it would be 1600mGy/hr at the point, and therefore 44.4mGy/hr at 6m
being distance squared of 6m

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not quite. You can't use the inverse square law to find the radiation level AT the point, because the distance would be zero, and therefore the radiation infinite. Notice however that 6m is 3 times farther away than 2m... so by what factor should the radiation decrease?
 
Zhermes
Q. If the radiation level is 400mGy/hr at 2m from a point source, what will be the radiation level be at 6m?

Are you saying the radiation level will decrease by a factor of three?

If at the piont of radiation the level is 1600mGy/hr, then at 2m it should represent a factor of four , ie 400mGy/hr at 2m. therefore at 3m should represent a factor of nine, etc.

Does this mean the radiation dose level drops or just the area increases, or both?
 
nonphysical said:
If at the piont of radiation the level is 1600mGy/hr, then at 2m it should represent a factor of four , ie 400mGy/hr at 2m.
Again, you can't talk about the amount of radiation AT the point.
nonphysical said:
therefore at 3m should represent a factor of nine, etc.
There you go.

nonphysical said:
Does this mean the radiation dose level drops or just the area increases, or both?
Both. The total radiation is constant no matter how far away you are; the area over which that radiation is distributed increases as the distance squared. Therefore the radiation per unit area (which is proportional to the radiation dose) drops as the distance squared.
 
Thanks for the reply

OK so the radiation level at 6m is still 400mGy/hr but covering an area of 36m2

as per 400mGy/hr at 2m covering an area of 4m2

How come the x-radiation shielding HVL system has to be calculated?
Why not just shield for the given dose rate regardless of distance, if the dose remains constant?

If the dose remains the same but proportional given the area, does this therefore mean at 2m the dose rate is 100mGy/hr for each square metre
And the same would apply at a distance of 6m being 36m2 each sqare metre having radiation penetration equivanlent to the proportion of the original dose spread over that area ie 11.11each?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K