/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15655135
I don't understand radiation but does that map mean at minimum you're getting twice the annual dosage limit for radiation workers?

>>15577835
20 CPM is approximately 4 microSievert per day. That is less than half than the normal daily background someone would receive and you would have to be up close to that source for all of that time. You aren't buying dangerous radioactive materials off Amazon.

>>12298038
And one chest CT scan is a big wad of radiation.
Like getting a chest x-ray every day for a year.

/pol/ is already celebrating like its the end but what are some actual explanations besides ayys and north koreans with very small nukes?

>>10922896
A good radiation primer is here:

http://www.clavius.org/envradintro.html

Also, pic related is good for some perspective.

Very possible, I actually was a D and F student from middle school until I graduated. I mean JUST graduated. Now I did very well on the standardized test and SAT I scored 1570. Now because of my scores I was able to attend a college that I never would have thought I would get in. I am working to complete my doctorate in physics by next year. I was lucky and had a science teacher in high school who took notice of my love of math and science even if my grades did not reflect this. He was the one who gave me the confidence (and information that it was still possible even with my past grades) that I could pursue a degree in what I loved but always assumed I would never be able to because of my school history. If I ever go back to my home town and high school I would love to thank him....i'd probably end up crying desu lol. Just don't give up, I know it sounds cliche but you can do it, there is always a way to make it work and get where you want to be no matter what has or is holding you back.

>>10452481
it’s totally within the safe range to fly as often as you’d like, pic related. a CT scan is way way more, pic related

if you take a vacuum chamber into space (out of the atmosphere) does it still have zero point energy?

>>10005616
in the neighborhood of 100 Sv

>>9969857

>>9951356
If they wont let you into the reactor chamber for security reasons just eat a few million bananas

>>9717598

I'll go ahead and drop this in, so when the bickering starts you guys don't have to go find it.

A thread for various infographics, graphs, programs, animations, youtube channels and videos etc. regarding science & math (duh)

A scale of universe from estimated size of universe to strings http://scaleofuniverse.com

Pretty accurate program for simulation in cosmic environment http://universesandbox.com/buy/

LD50 Lethal radiation dose
4 - 5 sieverts received over a short period of time (less if single dose)
source: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/lethal-dose-ld.html

Non-fatal radiation sickness (low white blood cell count, nausea)
1 sievert (single dose)

Accumulated annual dose expected to cause fatal cancer years later
1 sievert (5% of people)

Minimum annual dose expected to increase incidence of cancer
100 millisieverts

http://radiology.org/

Average annual accumulated background radiation
1.8 millisieverts (Canada)
6.2 millisieverts (United States)
2.4 millisieverts (worldwide)

http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/fact-sheets/natural-background-radiation.cfm
https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-sources-and-doses#averagedoses

>>9189589
>>9189621
You are constantly being bombarded with radiation of all types. Most of this radiation is called EMR (Electromagnetic Radiation) propagated from an astronomical amount of sources and is relatively low frequency. (Radio, TV, Phones, Internet, Satellites, Power Lines, and basically, wherever there is electricity flowing through a conductor, there is an electromagnetic field created around it.)

All of these sources work with a form of radiation called non-ionizing radiation. This means the EM waves contain enough energy to move the atoms around but not enough energy to break particles loose.
Ionizing radiation (harmful) removes particles because they carry a lot more energy and can break atomic bonds. These travel as UV-rays, x-rays or gamma-rays.

In this frequency range the generation and modulation of coherent electromagnetic signals ceases to be possible by the conventional electronic devices used to generate radio waves and microwaves.

Thermal energy (via EMR) can be added to a substance via non-ionized radiation in large amounts and perhaps the target material will produce some ionizing radiation in a burst, but it would not release much in comparison to how much thermal energy you would have to generate to do this. Ionizing radiation for medical devices use kinetic energy of accelerators to move particles up to ionizing levels and it is much more efficient.

TLDR;
It is IMPOSSIBLE to create ionizing (harmful) radiation using a radio antenna of any type.
PS: The average human absorbs 1000x times the amount of Ionizing radiation from natural souces (primarily the Sun) than unnatural sources.


/Thread

You would need 14 chest scans in one year to have increased cancer risk. Pic related.

80 Million bananas is equivalent to the fatal dosage of radiation

>>8740040
A single 7 mSv chest CT scan to a 21 year old man will give them an increased cancer risk of 1 in 1273, and a abdomen-pelvis CT scan will give that same man an increased cancer risk of 1 in 636.

This is somehow considered "not harmful" by the entire medical community.

>gives off as much radiation in 10 seconds as you receive in years
>not harmful

pick one

>>8734960
what do you mean by "all the radiation"

it's about 10 microsieverts per day. literally nothing in comparison to even a regular x-ray which can be 100 microsieverts in one blast no question, let alone a CT which can be literally 2,000 microsieverts for the lowest scan in like 10 seconds.

>>8463369
Hey thanks for the suggestions! I can't offer anything in return so here's a useful image.

>>8288867
xkcd says 7 mSv acute dose. Damn, that is pretty close to the probably threshold for increased cancer rates. The increase might be too small to detect in epidemiological data, but it might be there.