4 ms·

Yeah. Here is the manual. https://manualzz.com/doc/7054597/nukalerter-manual https://manualzz.com/doc/7054597/nukalerter-manual From the manual: Gamma Sensiti

Yeah. Here is the manual. https://manualzz.com/doc/7054597/nukalerter-manual https://manualzz.com/doc/7054597/nukalerter-manual From the manual: Gamma Sensitivity: 18 counts/sec @ 1mR/hr (10μSv/hr) Accuracy (Cs137): ± 20% background through 600R/hr Saturation: No saturation below 1000R/hr Background: <10 counts/minute (Shielded) Downvote me all you want this isn't useful unless shit gets real. Here is an interesting paper on gamma-ray monitoring: https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1356898 https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1356898 Here is [ostensibly]: some specs on the 7121 dectetor the "Nukalert" shitty USB product is based on: https://www.lndinc.com/products/geiger-mueller-tubes/712-2/ https://www.lndinc.com/products/geiger-mueller-tubes/712-2/

rikeanimer 5y ago
In fact, this question on the website makes no sense at all. The montana as well as the SF readings are within the noise of the sensor. ugh. sigh. FUD. "Q: Wait a moment... why are Montana readings quite a bit higher than in California? A: SF Bay Area is a coastal region, while the other location is up in the mountains - which means that there is less atmosphere to stop cosmic rays. The difference in measurements is quite substantial, around 40%. If that freaks you out, consider that a commercial flight easily exposes you to about 300 µR/h!"
- xf-- 5y ago
  Instrument noise, background radiation, and measurement accuracy are three different completely different things.
  - rikeanimer 5y ago
    yes they are. can you explain what your graphs are showing then, please? I think they are showing nothing but noise.
- lstodd 5y ago
  Ugh So many this. Looks like most news are just thermal noise from the wires leading to the (apparently missing) sensors that is then ran through the google translate or somthing. +/- a couple hundred or uRh? Pfew. You can have like 1-2Rh and never even notice it.

rikeanimer 5y ago

In fact, this question on the website makes no sense at all. The montana as well as the SF readings are within the noise of the sensor. ugh. sigh. FUD. "Q: Wait a moment... why are Montana readings quite a bit higher than in California? A: SF Bay Area is a coastal region, while the other location is up in the mountains - which means that there is less atmosphere to stop cosmic rays. The difference in measurements is quite substantial, around 40%. If that freaks you out, consider that a commercial flight easily exposes you to about 300 µR/h!"

xf-- 5y ago
Instrument noise, background radiation, and measurement accuracy are three different completely different things.
- rikeanimer 5y ago
  yes they are. can you explain what your graphs are showing then, please? I think they are showing nothing but noise.
lstodd 5y ago
Ugh So many this. Looks like most news are just thermal noise from the wires leading to the (apparently missing) sensors that is then ran through the google translate or somthing. +/- a couple hundred or uRh? Pfew. You can have like 1-2Rh and never even notice it.