Radiation Chart

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5359
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby mosc » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:53 pm UTC

Skispcs wrote:I know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation and the differences in the way it impacts the human body.
Something that has always hung out in the back of my head is my friend that received radiation burns from a 1 KW HF radio transmitting at about 10Mhz.
Long story, but he went out by the antenna without following proper procedure, but anyhow.

Were those burns caused by the heating of the cells or something else?

Thank You

WTF? Radiation burns? He either electrocuted himself or got some sunburn. I've stood directly in front of antennas with far more power than that, believe me. 10mhz is nothing either, that's ~30 meters of wavelength. Very low intensity.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby The Reaper » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:48 pm UTC

mosc wrote:
Skispcs wrote:I know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation and the differences in the way it impacts the human body.
Something that has always hung out in the back of my head is my friend that received radiation burns from a 1 KW HF radio transmitting at about 10Mhz.
Long story, but he went out by the antenna without following proper procedure, but anyhow.

Were those burns caused by the heating of the cells or something else?

Thank You

WTF? Radiation burns? He either electrocuted himself or got some sunburn. I've stood directly in front of antennas with far more power than that, believe me. 10mhz is nothing either, that's ~30 meters of wavelength. Very low intensity.

It makes the mind boggle.

User avatar
savanik
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby savanik » Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:08 pm UTC

Skispcs wrote:I know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation and the differences in the way it impacts the human body.
Something that has always hung out in the back of my head is my friend that received radiation burns from a 1 KW HF radio transmitting at about 10Mhz.
Long story, but he went out by the antenna without following proper procedure, but anyhow.

Were those burns caused by the heating of the cells or something else?

Thank You


These types of burns from RF frequencies are not caused directly by the radiation, but by dielectric heating of water molecules. The water molecules can then be heated - possibly to boiling, depending on the frequency and duration of exposure - and cause burns indirectly. It's also called a 'thermal effect' in RF Safety manuals. Some frequencies are more dangerous than others. You can find out more about RF safety in the American Radio Relay League's advisory. Direct quote: "Because these fields dissipate rapidly with distance, "prudent avoidance" would mean staying perhaps 12 to 18 inches away from most Amateur Radio equipment (and 24 inches from power supplies with 1-kW RF amplifiers) whenever the ac power is turned on." Translation: STOP TOUCHING THE ANTENNAE.

Actual radiation burns cause by direct exposure to a source are caused by beta radiation - about 2 Grays worth (6000 millisieverts). Note that beta burns are typically caused by exposure to radioactive fallout, not a direct radiation source. Also, beta radiation exposure is far more survivable than other forms of radiation exposure, due to the fact that beta particles are absorbed at the surface of the skin. Exposures above 2 Gray are serious and should get medical attention, but generally don't become life-threatening until about 25 Grays.
"If it were up to the copyright lobby, owning a pen would be punishable by fines." ---Arancaytar

User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 945
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby Minerva » Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:13 am UTC

Varion wrote:As my uncle died from brain cancer coincidentally on the same side he used his cell phone, I would be greatful if you would at least consider changing the chart.


And at the same time, by the same logic, Randall will acknowledge in all future comics that homeopathy really works, vaccines cause autism and lemon imports are responsible for all highway deaths. ( http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/sss/ci700332kn00001.gif )

Not.

http://xkcd.com/552/
...suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you play with them. They are so wonderful. - Richard Feynman

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:22 am UTC

Minerva wrote:
Varion wrote:As my uncle died from brain cancer coincidentally on the same side he used his cell phone, I would be greatful if you would at least consider changing the chart.


And at the same time, by the same logic, Randall will acknowledge in all future comics that homeopathy really works, vaccines cause autism and lemon imports are responsible for all highway deaths. ( http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/sss/ci700332kn00001.gif )


Was the entire purpose of that image to point out why "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" is a fallacy?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby The Reaper » Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:34 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Was the entire purpose of that image to point out why "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" is a fallacy?

That, or the American populace is willing to drink lemonade rather than alcohol while driving.

User avatar
Antimony-120
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:16 am UTC
Location: Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat.

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby Antimony-120 » Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:37 pm UTC

The Reaper wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Was the entire purpose of that image to point out why "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" is a fallacy?

That, or the American populace is willing to drink lemonade rather than alcohol while driving.

Nonsense, it's that scurvy was the cause of all those accidents. Difficult to drive when you're lacking your vitamin C!
Wolydarg wrote:That was like a roller coaster of mathematical reasoning. Problems! Solutions! More problems!


****************Signature Dehosted, New Signature Under Construction************************

socal111
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:49 pm UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby socal111 » Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:20 am UTC

Interesting

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby The Reaper » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:21 pm UTC


fattony
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:26 pm UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby fattony » Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:29 pm UTC

Bumping this just because I saw it for the first time today and have a question:
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
"Extra dose to Tokyo in weeks following the Fukushima accident" it says 40mSv but is represented as 40uSv accordin to the squares. Is 40uSv or 40mSv the correct amount of radiation?

User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 945
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby Minerva » Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:15 am UTC

What does the psychological epidemiology look like at Fukushima for psychological effects caused by stress and fear of radiation after we've corrected for the confounding factor of an enormous devastating earthquake and tsunami destroying everything, destroying families and communities and homes and livelihoods?

Of course psychological morbidity of this sort is not directly a health physics phenomenon, it's not caused by radioactivity. It's caused by fear of ionising radiation, FUD and pseudoscience, spread by the devout antinuclearists and a hysterical media.

We have learned from the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl that disinformation about the effects of small doses of ionising radiation, disinformation or lack of information about who is getting any radiological dose elevated above natural doses at all, where most of the community in fact isn't, lack of good education, media hysteria, and the resulting fear, uncertainty and doubt can have psychological public health impacts that outweigh the public health effects of actual radiological dose for the persons living around Chernobyl, and certainly far outweigh the negligible public health effects of the far smaller doses to the people living around Three Mile Island and Fukushima.

Personally, I think that's one of the greatest tragedies and greatest failures at Fukushima.

We *knew* from our experiences at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl that fear, uncertainty, doubt and panic spread by sensationalist journalists and the hysterical pseudoscience of anti-nuclear activists, and the forcing of evacuations, *creates* stress, mass hysteria, depression and other forms of psychological morbidity. These factors *cause* negative health impacts on the community far in excess of the negligible or nonexistent actual health physics effects.

We *knew* that this could easily happen again, and that anti-nuclear activists, hysterical journalists, and evacuation-trigger-happy politicians are important factors that need to managed and regulated in order to minimise the adverse health effects that they create in the event of a reactor emergency. This sort of thing is explicitly discussed in the report into the President's Commission into the TMI accident, for example. But it was allowed to happen again.

I wonder, how does the epidemiology of psychological health issues compare between Fukushima and any other parts of the Tōhoku region other than Fukushima?

What does the psychological epidemiology of the wider Tōhoku region look like in terms of the damage caused by an enormous devastating earthquake and tsunami destroying everything, destroying families and communities and homes and livelihoods, after we've corrected for the confounding factor of stress caused by the Fukushima events and fear of radiation?

sourmìlk wrote:
Minerva wrote:
Varion wrote:As my uncle died from brain cancer coincidentally on the same side he used his cell phone, I would be greatful if you would at least consider changing the chart.


And at the same time, by the same logic, Randall will acknowledge in all future comics that homeopathy really works, vaccines cause autism and lemon imports are responsible for all highway deaths. ( http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/sss/ci700332kn00001.gif )


Was the entire purpose of that image to point out why "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" is a fallacy?


No, man! It's the Big Lemon corporations! They're killing our families! And the goverment and the media is just covering it up!Don't listen to the sheeple, learn the truth for yourself!

:P
...suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you play with them. They are so wonderful. - Richard Feynman

morriswalters
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby morriswalters » Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:36 am UTC

Cell phone radiation is too new a phenomenon to know if there is a mechanism we are unaware of that could make it dangerous. Until such a thing is demonstrated I think I will keep using mine.

Peoples reaction to radiation exposure is not surprising given a couple of factors. Consider that, at least for at the population of the USA, over half believe in ghosts. Consider also that they were told consistently for years the severe reactors accidents were rare events, yet here we are having seen three in my lifetime, and I do realize that any power plant can have accidents. And finally that radiation can be concentrated by the biosphere. One of the side effects of atmospheric nuclear testing was the appearance of high levels(relatively) of strontium 90 in teeth. It's hard to explain to a population who by education and training aren't prepared to understand the relative dangers of the technology.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby yurell » Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:13 am UTC

fattony wrote:"Extra dose to Tokyo in weeks following the Fukushima accident" it says 40mSv but is represented as 40uSv accordin to the squares. Is 40uSv or 40mSv the correct amount of radiation?


I'm not sure, but forty millisieverts sounds far too high, especially since actual evacuees got under seventy millisiverts.

Edit: I'm convinced it's 40 µSv
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 945
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby Minerva » Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:47 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:Cell phone radiation is too new a phenomenon to know if there is a mechanism we are unaware of that could make it dangerous.


If such a mechanism existed, it would be extremely interesting, because it would seem to be contrary to a lot of established basic physics and chemistry.

Basically, with any health issue like this, eg. "Homeopathy works!", or "Cellphones cause cancer!" or "Vaccines cause autism!", personally, I can't take it seriously until they present both (a) a convincing mechanism of how it works that is consistent with basic science, and (b) epidemiology which shows that it occurs to a statistically significant degree. If they only present one of those two things I always think it's likely that their epidemiology, or their proposed mechanism, is flawed.
...suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you play with them. They are so wonderful. - Richard Feynman

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby BlackSails » Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:09 am UTC

Minerva wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Cell phone radiation is too new a phenomenon to know if there is a mechanism we are unaware of that could make it dangerous.


If such a mechanism existed, it would be extremely interesting, because it would seem to be contrary to a lot of established basic physics and chemistry.

Basically, with any health issue like this, eg. "Homeopathy works!", or "Cellphones cause cancer!" or "Vaccines cause autism!", personally, I can't take it seriously until they present both (a) a convincing mechanism of how it works that is consistent with basic science, and (b) epidemiology which shows that it occurs to a statistically significant degree. If they only present one of those two things I always think it's likely that their epidemiology, or their proposed mechanism, is flawed.


Strong enough epidemiology should at least make you think "ok, its quite probable there is something we dont understand at work here." Like prion disease were known before we knew of a mechanism for prions.

SideBandit
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:43 am UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby SideBandit » Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:50 am UTC

I have always been scared of radiation (growing in the cold war/chernobyl era) and this chart was oddly comforting to me. However, I just saw an article in the Guardian which mentions that "a puddle that had formed near the steel storage tank was emitting a radiation dose of 100 millisieverts an hour." I looked this up on the handy chart and was shocked how much this is! Could it be a mistake for microsieverts?

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5359
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby mosc » Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:14 pm UTC

I think the unit is correct. It's water that was in direct contact with the fuel rods for an extended period. The water is pretty charged up. Walking by a puddle of it wouldn't be that noticeable. Standing a few feet from it is probably worse for you than standing outside on a sunny day by maybe an order of magnitude?
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby yurell » Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:14 pm UTC

That's ten thousand times worse
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:20 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Cell phone radiation is too new a phenomenon to know if there is a mechanism we are unaware of that could make it dangerous. Until such a thing is demonstrated I think I will keep using mine.

Peoples reaction to radiation exposure is not surprising given a couple of factors. Consider that, at least for at the population of the USA, over half believe in ghosts. Consider also that they were told consistently for years the severe reactors accidents were rare events, yet here we are having seen three in my lifetime, and I do realize that any power plant can have accidents. And finally that radiation can be concentrated by the biosphere. One of the side effects of atmospheric nuclear testing was the appearance of high levels(relatively) of strontium 90 in teeth. It's hard to explain to a population who by education and training aren't prepared to understand the relative dangers of the technology.


*shrug* You'd see incidence rates first in people with very high levels of exposure for things like cell phones. Like, say, microwave popcorn. You won't see negative effects in someone who casually has a bag now and again, but in someone who works in a factory day in and day out...you'll see a higher incidence of respiratory illness that is incredibly suggestive.

If the effect is too small to be noticed even with vast amounts of exposure, then it may as well not exist at all, as far as you're concerned.

morriswalters
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby morriswalters » Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:05 am UTC

The first obvious answer is that there isn't a problem, the second obvious answer is that the problem is hidden by noise. I don't think either to be honest, but who knows. Cell phones have existed since the 90's? When the generation that adopted them as kids reach my age and don't grow fungus out of their ears I guess it will be fine. I don't think it will be a problem in any case since it would seem that they won't exist as they do know for much longer. I think smart watches and projected displays will replace them. Unless Sergey Brin has his way.

As for the Japanese radiation problem, I thought the common wisdom was that it wasn't, a problem that is.[/sarcasm]

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9313
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby addams » Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:04 am UTC

I have nothing useful to add to the conversation.
Neither did you.

A lack of something to say did not stop you.
I won't let it stop me either.
++$_ wrote:The takeaway message here is that you should not apply a Labrador puppy to the side of your head (at least, not over the long term).

A Lab Pup is an acceptable risk.
Cute is nearly as compelling as fear.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5359
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby mosc » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:00 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:The first obvious answer is that there isn't a problem, the second obvious answer is that the problem is hidden by noise. I don't think either to be honest, but who knows. Cell phones have existed since the 90's? When the generation that adopted them as kids reach my age and don't grow fungus out of their ears I guess it will be fine. I don't think it will be a problem in any case since it would seem that they won't exist as they do know for much longer. I think smart watches and projected displays will replace them. Unless Sergey Brin has his way.

Handheld radio transmitters are like 50 years old and many kicked out considerably more power than today's cell phones. 1990's my ass. As explained, the physics are well understood and the health risks non-existent. It's less intense than light. If the side of your face isn't boiling off, your brain isn't getting irradiated at those frequencies.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

morriswalters
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby morriswalters » Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:46 pm UTC

mosc wrote:Handheld radio transmitters are like 50 years old and many kicked out considerably more power than today's cell phones. 1990's my ass. As explained, the physics are well understood and the health risks non-existent. It's less intense than light. If the side of your face isn't boiling off, your brain isn't getting irradiated at those frequencies.
Handheld radios are even older than that. So what. Costs came down in the 90's, or did I miss something. And until they did there weren't enough transmitters in use to make a difference.

Exposure to sunlight increases the risk of certain type of cancers. It also damages the skin, which is why there is a lucrative trade in sun blockers. And it does it even though you're designed to need it. Anything can harm you given sufficient exposure. Now I own phones and consider them blessings. So I don't think there is any significant risks. But I never say never any more. But think what you please, your old enough to have the privilege.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby Tyndmyr » Sun Aug 25, 2013 5:54 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
mosc wrote:Handheld radio transmitters are like 50 years old and many kicked out considerably more power than today's cell phones. 1990's my ass. As explained, the physics are well understood and the health risks non-existent. It's less intense than light. If the side of your face isn't boiling off, your brain isn't getting irradiated at those frequencies.
Handheld radios are even older than that. So what. Costs came down in the 90's, or did I miss something. And until they did there weren't enough transmitters in use to make a difference.

Exposure to sunlight increases the risk of certain type of cancers. It also damages the skin, which is why there is a lucrative trade in sun blockers. And it does it even though you're designed to need it. Anything can harm you given sufficient exposure. Now I own phones and consider them blessings. So I don't think there is any significant risks. But I never say never any more. But think what you please, your old enough to have the privilege.


Not enough transmitters? The total number of transmitters don't matter, the only thing that matters is your distance from a transmitter. Transmitters that are some distance from you must, obviously, provide very, very little radiation. And by radiation, yes, this is the same use of radiation that includes sunlight, heat, etc. Yeah, your phone might get hot. Meh. The effects of heat on the human body are *very* well known. The typical case of describing non-ionizing radiation as if it were the same type emitted from a nuclear bomb always annoys me. It's sort of like when people rail against "chemicals" in food.

Why, just the other day, I had to explain to someone that Ascorbic acid and citric acid in food were not, in fact, some horrible thing invented by a company to save a few cents at the price of giving you cancer.

Yes, non-ionizing radiation will hurt you "in sufficient quantities". Those quantities are those which impart enough energy to literally melt your face off. Face not burning away? You're fine.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby sardia » Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:36 pm UTC

What Tyndmyr is describing in plain English is called burning yourself by touching hot things. You ever see the lamps that Mcdonalds use over their fries? That's non-ionizing radiation he's describing.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9313
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby addams » Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:45 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote: The typical case of describing non-ionizing radiation as if it were the same type emitted from a nuclear bomb always annoys me. It's sort of like when people rail against "chemicals" in food.

Why, just the other day, I had to explain to someone that Ascorbic acid and citric acid in food were not, in fact, some horrible thing invented by a company to save a few cents at the price of giving you cancer.

Yes, non-ionizing radiation will hurt you "in sufficient quantities". Those quantities are those which impart enough energy to literally melt your face off. Face not burning away? You're fine.

Yes. This.
We live in a more understood world than the world people one hundred years ago lived in.
With understanding often come fear. The People are frightened. Needlessly? Yes, sometimes.

The world is dangerous. What I think I see in The People is like a wave function.
Our collective understand is in front of our common understanding.
It has always been this way and always will be.

We had Medicine Men and Women to tell us when the Gods were pleased and displeased.
How soon we forget the dangers of the Industrial Age.

Most of us live in very safe and interesting environments.
Acorbic Acid! and Surfactants! Oh, Dear!

I seem to have lost what little patience I once had for those kinds of misunderstandings.
It is good to remind myself, 'I don't know much, either.'

But; It is difficult for me when other people place restrictions on me based on,
"That is a Chemical that 'They' are using to pollute and to poison us."

Fearful people are not as much fun as relaxed people.
Of course, People that are arrogant, selfish and unwilling to consider the effects on others of their actions are difficult, too.

Have we not each had at least one moment of absolute abject terror facing a chemical, radiation source or some other force of nature?
If not, Get busy! There is some scary shit out there! Go find it! Then, Don't mess with it, too much.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

morriswalters
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby morriswalters » Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:49 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Not enough transmitters? The total number of transmitters don't matter, the only thing that matters is your distance from a transmitter.
Context. Not enough transmitters refers to the number of phones in existence at a given point in time, therefore the number of people exposed to them. Not the amount of RF in terms of power. Currently about 6.8 billion according to Wikipedia. How many handsets were in existence in 1990? I also know that standards exist for exposure to RF. Certainly if you live in a tall building with cell antennas on the roof you have to meet criteria for exposure in the occupied spaces. Buildings require measurements to prove compliance with the standard. I have watched this done multiple times. And I understand the inverse square rule. I also believe that engineering history is littered with things we didn't know until they bit us in the ass.
Tyndmyr wrote:Why, just the other day, I had to explain to someone that Ascorbic acid and citric acid in food were not, in fact, some horrible thing invented by a company to save a few cents at the price of giving you cancer.
I'm not frightened of chemistry, nor long Latin polysyllables. I even like MSG, I'm using it to reduce my sodium intake. I've also been vaccinated for more diseases than I care to admit. I also am aware of the level of ignorance of the world that I hold. Which makes me cautious. Hey there is a Wiki page!

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5359
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby mosc » Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:26 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Context. Not enough transmitters refers to the number of phones in existence at a given point in time, therefore the number of people exposed to them. Not the amount of RF in terms of power. Currently about 6.8 billion according to Wikipedia. How many handsets were in existence in 1990? I also know that standards exist for exposure to RF. Certainly if you live in a tall building with cell antennas on the roof you have to meet criteria for exposure in the occupied spaces. Buildings require measurements to prove compliance with the standard. I have watched this done multiple times. And I understand the inverse square rule. I also believe that engineering history is littered with things we didn't know until they bit us in the ass.

I'm sorry, you just don't understand the nature of RF radiation to say that. Radio predates the 1990s. Earlier transmitters were often much more powerful and much less shielded than today's very low power cell phones. Radio transmitters have followed humans around throughout the modern era. Our power grids blast out extremely low frequency RF at huge rates. We also have a much better understanding of the wide spectrum radiation we get bombarded with from the sun and the limits of the body's ability to withstand it. You can be a cynic all you want, it's healthy but at some point you're going to have to accept that the apple is gonna fall at very close to 9.8 m/s^2 when you drop it and that 5 watts of 800mhz RF is not something your body can perceive.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby stevey_frac » Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:11 pm UTC

I agree with Mosc.

That should give you pause.

morriswalters
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby morriswalters » Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:40 pm UTC

I understand RF pretty well, but think what you want. There are a number of long term studies happening in a number of research centers. Looking at study groups over 20 year spans. They evidently want to study the effects over time. And I'll repeat, I don't think there is a problem or I wouldn't own one. I'm glad you agree with mosc, stevey_frac. The only difference between his position and mine is that I keep an open mind just in case.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:56 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I understand RF pretty well, but think what you want. There are a number of long term studies happening in a number of research centers. Looking at study groups over 20 year spans. They evidently want to study the effects over time. And I'll repeat, I don't think there is a problem or I wouldn't own one. I'm glad you agree with mosc, stevey_frac. The only difference between his position and mine is that I keep an open mind just in case.

Is this open mind of similar probability that the world is an illusion caused by a demon therefore proving the existence of god?

morriswalters
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby morriswalters » Tue Aug 27, 2013 12:04 am UTC

No this would be the type of open mind that makes people install fire alarms, in case the building can actually burn. Or perhaps the type of mind that would build enough lifeboats even though the boat is unsinkable. Or maybe the type that was surprised that a bridge could gallop. In terms of the acceptance of demons, who cares if they exist or not.

Precautionary measures and health advisories

In May 2011, the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer announced it was classifying electromagnetic fields from mobile phones and other sources as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" and advised the public to adopt safety measures to reduce exposure, like use of hands-free devices or texting.

Some national radiation advisory authorities, including those of Austria,[4] France,[94] Germany,[95] and Sweden,[96] have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens. Examples of the recommendations are:

Use hands-free to decrease the radiation to the head.
Keep the mobile phone away from the body.
Do not use telephone in a car without an external antenna.
Use mobile radiation tracking apps have been developed to help to mitigate exposure[97]

The use of "hands-free" was not recommended by the British Consumers' Association in a statement in November 2000 as they believed that exposure was increased.[98] However, measurements for the (then) UK Department of Trade and Industry[99] and others for the French l’Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale[100] showed substantial reductions. In 2005 Professor Lawrie Challis and others said clipping a ferrite bead onto hands-free kits stops the radio waves travelling up the wire and into the head.[101]

Several nations have advised moderate use of mobile phones for children.[102]
Who am I to argue with the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer. I won't bother too much with citations, it seems to be a waste.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby sardia » Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:10 am UTC

Fair enough, keep an open mind. Btw, have you installed some antislip pads in your bathroom? I've heard they are quite dangerous.

Your examples are things that actually happened, as opposed to cellphones radiation which are things that people say could happen.

morriswalters
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby morriswalters » Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:57 am UTC

sardia wrote:Fair enough, keep an open mind. Btw, have you installed some antislip pads in your bathroom? I've heard they are quite dangerous.

Your examples are things that actually happened, as opposed to cellphones radiation which are things that people say could happen.
Actually no, but I have installed grab bars. I'm removing barriers and tripping hazards in my home as well. The things I mentioned were indications of hubris and unforeseen possibilities. They found they were wrong after the fact. They discovered failure modes they hadn't predicted or principles they were unaware of. It's actually quite common for it to happen that way. However I'm not sure why my position upsets you? I use cell phones, and I have spent quite a bit of time on a rooftop with 5 cell sites. But I have learned that you never expect bad things to happen. So I'm cautious, if you don't wish to be I've lost nothing and I would guess you haven't either.

elasto
Posts: 3025
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby elasto » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:19 am UTC

A pessimist is never disappointed! :D

morriswalters
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby morriswalters » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:23 am UTC

elasto wrote:A pessimist is never disappointed! :D
I have scars to show I'm haven't been pessimistic enough. :D

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9313
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby addams » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:33 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
elasto wrote:A pessimist is never disappointed! :D
I have scars to show I'm haven't been pessimistic enough. :D

Pessimism will not save you.
The Optimists have more fun.

There is a fine line between a sunny disposition and a Nutter.

Radiation? Yep. That stuff will get ya'.
If something else does not get you first.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

elasto
Posts: 3025
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby elasto » Wed Aug 28, 2013 2:05 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
elasto wrote:A pessimist is never disappointed! :D
I have scars to show I'm haven't been pessimistic enough. :D

:)

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby Klear » Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:42 pm UTC

I was just looking up what exactly a Sievert is on wikipedia.

See anything familiar there?

CharonPDX
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:55 am UTC

Re: Radiation Chart

Postby CharonPDX » Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:49 am UTC

And now, nearly six years after the Fukushima meltdown, the inside of the reactor building is approximate twice the radiation levels at Chernobyl right after the explosion. :shock: (650 Sieverts per hour.)

https://www.engadget.com/2017/02/10/fuk ... ing-robot/


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rivulatus and 10 guests