Radium 226 Dangers & Measurement: Facts & Safety Tips

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Kwalle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measurement
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the dangers and measurement of radium 226, particularly in the context of a polluted beach. Participants explore concerns about exposure to radiation from radium 226, its potential health effects, and the implications of measured radiation levels in the environment.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses concern about the dangers of radium 226 pollution at a beach, citing specific measurements of 6Bq/g and 167 microSv/year.
  • Another participant suggests that the reported radiation level is relatively low compared to natural background radiation, which is around 2.5 milliSieverts/year.
  • A participant questions whether the pollution is man-made or natural, clarifying that it is man-made pollution.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential health risks of swimming in the polluted beach water and the possibility of ingesting contaminated sand.
  • One participant notes the uncertainty surrounding the health effects of low-level radiation exposure, mentioning differing beliefs about radiation's impact on cancer risk.
  • Another participant speculates about the source of the radioactive material, suggesting it could be related to natural geological formations like granite.
  • A comment highlights the relative risk of dying in a car accident compared to the potential cancer risk from low-level radiation exposure.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the health risks associated with low levels of radiation exposure, with no consensus reached on whether the measured levels of radium 226 pose a significant danger to individuals.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the specific sources of the radium 226 pollution and the assumptions underlying the health risk assessments. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of radiation exposure and its potential effects.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals concerned about environmental radiation, public health, and safety, as well as those studying the effects of radioactive materials.

Kwalle
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi,

i have a question about the radioactive behaviour of radium 226 and its dangers. The reason for my question is that I'm going to work in a town, where unfortunately the beach is polluted with radium 226.

I'm concernced about this issue and want to know how dangerous this has to be taken. For example while going for a walk on the coastline - or going to swim on the beach.

the pollution was measured in the beach sand:
6Bq /g
167 microSv/yr
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Interesting. Check these out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Mazandaran

If your 167 microSieverts/year is accurate, the effects should be small, since this is less than 10% of the natural background radiation level of about 2.5 milliSieverts/yearr. Note the second link about a place with Ra226 levels more than 1000X higher than you are talking about, where it is claimed that there are no ill effects.

Just curious, are we talking man-made pollution or natural radioactivity?
 
Thank you for your answer,
it's man made pollution,

maybe look for yourself, i do not really understand the report about it:
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/rsh/Detailed_information.html

i'm especially worried about - swimming at the beach, when you swallow accidently some sand or when you go for a walk, and there is sand on your shoes, or in your jacket, because "Several hundred tons of sand seem to be affected". Some of my relatives has cancer and so i take this kind of problem really serious.
 
Last edited:
I really can't answer your questions. Nobody really knows the answer as to whether low levels of radiation like these are harmful or not. Some people believe that any exposure to radiation, no matter how small, will increase your chances of getting cancer. Others believe that there are natural repair mechanisms, and that there are no harmful effects until the radiation exceeds some threshold. Still others believe that exposure to low-levels of radiation is actually beneficial. Here are some starting points for further reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model#Controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
 
Looking at the article, its sounds like Bureaucracy in full flood.
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material could mean anything, including human waste which is slightly radioactive itself. Probably it's something being transported from A to B by groundwater. If there's any granite in the locality it's more than likely that's the source.
Radium is not mentioned except in comments. So I would guess at uranium from granite (just a guess).
If you're worried by this I suggest you stay out of Scotland entirely. Oh, and don't go in a house anywhere in the world (radon gas).
 
You can't avoid all risk. You are probably 5-6 orders of magnitude more likely to die in a car accident on your way to the beach then getting cancer from trace amounts of naturally occurring background radiation.
 
ok, thanks !

so you think, the amount of radioactive material is too low to cause any serios risks for citizens ? For example if you avoid beeing at the beach ? what is the usual number of background radiation ?
 

Similar threads

Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 226)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 226)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Do Movies Teach Us Realistic Life Skills?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K