5 ms·

Jeezus Cripes, way over reaction. I have Fiestaware plates that put out over 30uSv/h / 3mR/h / 9200cpm. Unrefined uranium ore puts out waaaay less that. As long

Jeezus Cripes, way over reaction. I have Fiestaware plates that put out over 30uSv/h / 3mR/h / 9200cpm. Unrefined uranium ore puts out waaaay less that. As long as you're not sleeping with the junk under your bed or working with it next to your desk all day long you're fine. Even then, it's still less exposure than air crews that fly every day receive. No one was harmed by this.

eveningcoffee 8y ago
For the reference, I measured the levels with my basic dosimeter on one flight. Measurements topped at 72 uSv/h. Common reading during the flight was in the 50-60 uSv/h range. What I found very interesting was that the levels were slightly lower in the air near the ground than on the ground where I landed.
- simonh 8y ago
  Maybe that just means the ground is more radioactive than air?
  - lightedman 8y ago
    This is the correct answer. There're tons of microparticles of radioactive monzonite (and other radioactive minerals) in the dirt. And if you're near a granite body, you will show even higher levels of radiation. Downvoters need to pick up a geology book.
jacobolus 8y ago
It’s entirely plausible that in practice nobody received a dangerous amount of radiation in this case, but... > The report indicated radiation levels at "13.9 mR/hr" where the buckets were stored, and "800 mR/hr" on contact with the ore. > [...] The commission lists a maximum safe dosage for the public, beyond natural radiation, is no more than 2 millirems per hour, or 100 per year. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/18/grand-canyon-tourists-exposed-radiation-safety-manager-says/2876435002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/1...
- StreamBright 8y ago
  Actually: https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/RadiationSafety/safe_use/exposure.htm https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/R... Regulatory Limits for Occupational Exposure Many of the recommendations from the ICRP and other groups have been incorporated into the regulatory requirements of countries around the world. In the United States, annual radiation exposure limits are found in Title 10, part 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and in equivalent state regulations. For industrial radiographers who generally are not concerned with an intake of radioactive material, the Code sets the annual limit of exposure at the following: 1) the more limiting of: A total effective dose equivalent of 5 rems (0.05 Sv) or The sum of the deep-dose equivalent to any individual organ or tissue other than the lens of the eye being equal to 50 rems (0.5 Sv). 2) The annual limits to the lens of the eye, to the skin, and to the extremities, which are: A lens dose equivalent of 15 rems (0.15 Sv) A shallow-dose equivalent of 50 rems (0.50 Sv) to the skin or to any extremity. The shallow-dose equivalent is the external dose to the skin of the whole-body or extremities from an external source of ionizing radiation. This value is the dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 0.007 cm averaged over and area of 10 cm2. The lens dose equivalent is the dose equivalent to the lens of the eye from an external source of ionizing radiation. This value is the dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 0.3 cm. The deep-dose equivalent is the whole-body dose from an external source of ionizing radiation. This value is the dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 1 cm. The total effective dose equivalent is the dose equivalent to the whole-body. Declared Pregnant Workers and Minors Because of the increased health risks to the rapidly developing embryo and fetus, pregnant women can receive no more than 0.5 rem during the entire gestation period. This is 10% of the dose limit that normally applies to radiation workers. Persons under the age of 18 years are also limited to 0.5rem/year. Non-radiation Workers and the Public The dose limit to non-radiation workers and members of the public are two percent of the annual occupational dose limit. Therefore, a non-radiation worker can receive a whole body dose of no more that 0.1 rem/year from industrial ionizing radiation. This exposure would be in addition to the 0.3 rem/year from natural background radiation and the 0.05 rem/year from man-made sources such as medical x-rays.
  - godelski 8y ago
    > A total effective dose equivalent of 5 rems (0.05 Sv) Most places moved to 20mSv now and use 50mSv for short term (100mSv is detectable chance of cancer developing). Average US worker exposure is ~2mSv/yr.[0] [0] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/radiation-and-health/nuclear-radiation-and-health-effects.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sigi45 8y ago
While there is nothing to harm you, apparently, shouldn't it be still a goal for us humans to try to use materials which do not radiat at all? How much impact does radiation has on our cancer rates we at the moment? I mean, i would accept the risk of flying and getting a xray but i would probably try to choose my building materials differently if it would make sense.
- cr0sh 8y ago
  > shouldn't it be still a goal for us humans to try to use materials which do not radiat at all? At this late stage, that is probably an impossible goal to meet.

eveningcoffee 8y ago

For the reference, I measured the levels with my basic dosimeter on one flight. Measurements topped at 72 uSv/h. Common reading during the flight was in the 50-60 uSv/h range. What I found very interesting was that the levels were slightly lower in the air near the ground than on the ground where I landed.

simonh 8y ago
Maybe that just means the ground is more radioactive than air?
- lightedman 8y ago
  This is the correct answer. There're tons of microparticles of radioactive monzonite (and other radioactive minerals) in the dirt. And if you're near a granite body, you will show even higher levels of radiation. Downvoters need to pick up a geology book.

jacobolus 8y ago

It’s entirely plausible that in practice nobody received a dangerous amount of radiation in this case, but... > The report indicated radiation levels at "13.9 mR/hr" where the buckets were stored, and "800 mR/hr" on contact with the ore. > [...] The commission lists a maximum safe dosage for the public, beyond natural radiation, is no more than 2 millirems per hour, or 100 per year. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/18/grand-canyon-tourists-exposed-radiation-safety-manager-says/2876435002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/1...

StreamBright 8y ago
Actually: https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/RadiationSafety/safe_use/exposure.htm https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/R... Regulatory Limits for Occupational Exposure Many of the recommendations from the ICRP and other groups have been incorporated into the regulatory requirements of countries around the world. In the United States, annual radiation exposure limits are found in Title 10, part 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and in equivalent state regulations. For industrial radiographers who generally are not concerned with an intake of radioactive material, the Code sets the annual limit of exposure at the following: 1) the more limiting of: A total effective dose equivalent of 5 rems (0.05 Sv) or The sum of the deep-dose equivalent to any individual organ or tissue other than the lens of the eye being equal to 50 rems (0.5 Sv). 2) The annual limits to the lens of the eye, to the skin, and to the extremities, which are: A lens dose equivalent of 15 rems (0.15 Sv) A shallow-dose equivalent of 50 rems (0.50 Sv) to the skin or to any extremity. The shallow-dose equivalent is the external dose to the skin of the whole-body or extremities from an external source of ionizing radiation. This value is the dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 0.007 cm averaged over and area of 10 cm2. The lens dose equivalent is the dose equivalent to the lens of the eye from an external source of ionizing radiation. This value is the dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 0.3 cm. The deep-dose equivalent is the whole-body dose from an external source of ionizing radiation. This value is the dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 1 cm. The total effective dose equivalent is the dose equivalent to the whole-body. Declared Pregnant Workers and Minors Because of the increased health risks to the rapidly developing embryo and fetus, pregnant women can receive no more than 0.5 rem during the entire gestation period. This is 10% of the dose limit that normally applies to radiation workers. Persons under the age of 18 years are also limited to 0.5rem/year. Non-radiation Workers and the Public The dose limit to non-radiation workers and members of the public are two percent of the annual occupational dose limit. Therefore, a non-radiation worker can receive a whole body dose of no more that 0.1 rem/year from industrial ionizing radiation. This exposure would be in addition to the 0.3 rem/year from natural background radiation and the 0.05 rem/year from man-made sources such as medical x-rays.
- godelski 8y ago
  > A total effective dose equivalent of 5 rems (0.05 Sv) Most places moved to 20mSv now and use 50mSv for short term (100mSv is detectable chance of cancer developing). Average US worker exposure is ~2mSv/yr.[0] [0] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/radiation-and-health/nuclear-radiation-and-health-effects.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sigi45 8y ago

While there is nothing to harm you, apparently, shouldn't it be still a goal for us humans to try to use materials which do not radiat at all? How much impact does radiation has on our cancer rates we at the moment? I mean, i would accept the risk of flying and getting a xray but i would probably try to choose my building materials differently if it would make sense.

cr0sh 8y ago
> shouldn't it be still a goal for us humans to try to use materials which do not radiat at all? At this late stage, that is probably an impossible goal to meet.