4 ms·

I assume it is just marketing. This is cheap chinese device. And spec says: > Measurement error – <30% within a given deviation between For many people even

by jkot 10y ago

I assume it is just marketing. This is cheap chinese device. And spec says: > Measurement error – <30% within a given deviation between For many people even 50% error is acceptable. It is just to check if house or hotel is safe. I live at place where radon, radioactive ashes, low concentrations of uran.. are credible danger.

orik 10y ago
I agree with the general sentiment that we shouldn't hound on this thing for not being very accurate - professionals are using professional equipment, and this is more likely aimed at preppers. I am surprised to see that they list the operating temperature from 10 to 40c - I wonder why it stops working outside those bounds or how off those bounds are. It would love to see someone to order a few of these and review them in all sorts of different tests.
UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
Just to kind of mirror what the poster you're replying to said, it is "unlikely" you could use this to accurately detect radon. This article[0] talks about some of the difficulties you may face and how much data you'd need to collect. Considering how inexpensive and reliable radon test kits are, it may be advisable to stick to that. [0] http://www.azomining.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=192 http://www.azomining.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=192
sandworm101 10y ago
30% is the error rate for measuring radiation AT the detector. In doing something like comparing pieces of fish, with all the factors mentioned above, I'd expect monumentally greater error rates, of several thousand percentages... rendering the device useless. There is plenty of evidence that the stress created by a device like this, by an obsession with infinitesimal amounts of background radiation, does far more harm. I see no net health benefit from such products. Fyi, a 25% error rate detector can be build using a soup can and some string. (Not a joke. This thing actually works.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kearny_fallout_meter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kearny_fallout_meter

by jkot 10y ago

orik 10y ago

I agree with the general sentiment that we shouldn't hound on this thing for not being very accurate - professionals are using professional equipment, and this is more likely aimed at preppers. I am surprised to see that they list the operating temperature from 10 to 40c - I wonder why it stops working outside those bounds or how off those bounds are. It would love to see someone to order a few of these and review them in all sorts of different tests.

UnoriginalGuy 10y ago

Just to kind of mirror what the poster you're replying to said, it is "unlikely" you could use this to accurately detect radon. This article[0] talks about some of the difficulties you may face and how much data you'd need to collect. Considering how inexpensive and reliable radon test kits are, it may be advisable to stick to that. [0] http://www.azomining.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=192 http://www.azomining.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=192

sandworm101 10y ago

30% is the error rate for measuring radiation AT the detector. In doing something like comparing pieces of fish, with all the factors mentioned above, I'd expect monumentally greater error rates, of several thousand percentages... rendering the device useless. There is plenty of evidence that the stress created by a device like this, by an obsession with infinitesimal amounts of background radiation, does far more harm. I see no net health benefit from such products. Fyi, a 25% error rate detector can be build using a soup can and some string. (Not a joke. This thing actually works.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kearny_fallout_meter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kearny_fallout_meter