• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Majia CPM to Microsieverts
#1
Majia: Converting CPM to MicroSieverts https://majiasblog.blogspot.com.uy/2011/...3234840142

Working it out, be sure to read comments, some corrections noted.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#2
In my humble opinion there is great confusion when determining risk from radiation measurements. This is because you need to know 

1) how much radiation
2) what it comes from; f.e. which radionuclide, what form it is, hot particle etc
3) how toxic it is

If one is able to determine how much and what radionuclide, you can still be off by hundreds or thousands of times (!!!) when assuming toxicity, according to Busby and his group the ECRR

Ive repeated this many times but nobody seems to acknowledge it.   Being wrong by twice or three times is maybe within bounds of reason, but if you are wrong by 1000x or Busby even says a million times, then the risk assessment from radiation measurement is useless.  Worse than useless actually because it will give a false sense of safety. 

Somehow this is not sinking in...so I suggest taking a radiation measurement and multiplying it by 1000 to check if your emotional response is different.  One millisievert or one sievert....

I suppose some assumptions could help.  For example, if one assumed the higher radiation readings came from nuclear fallout, then typical fallout radionuclides could be assumed. Use the ECRR dose coefficients, which on average are about 600 times more dangerous than the ICRP  dose coefficients.   600 times is significant....try lifting one pound compared to 600 pounds for example.  

So, just how much worse for your health is say a doubling of radiation readings....from 30 cpm to 60 cm?  If your meter is blipping along at an average of 30 cpm from background radiation ( example only, not a relevant number) ....and one day you read 60 cpm and that extra 30 is due to fallout, how much more dangerous is it?   . Well background radiation has not been determined to be dangerous, (see footnote) and a doubling on the meter due to fallout could be 1000 times worse than claimed by the ICRP....we can see the relative risk by dividing [1000 x 30 x ICRP dose coeffient] by zero ...and the result is infinitely more toxic.  Infinity is quite a large number!

  But the readings may not come from fallout....then what?    And what is one going to do about it? Shelter indoors?  

For me,  unless one is trying to uncover secret fallout releases, the more realistic approach is to take anti cancer herbs and minerals and just forget about the measurement.   If one is unlucky to be near a meltdown, like Fukushima, then ones life is screwed.  Quick iodine and evacuation is the only option.   Living downwind or close to power plants would be a reason to measure, in case one has iodine on hand and the car packed and ready

But Im open minded.  Please explain how this view is erroneous

footnote;  there is some indication that cosmic rays have some deleterious effect. Also, radon....many studies showed no clear evidence of health detriment at low levels but a newer study has shown some effect.  Tests on K-40 showed no mutation or health damage.   K-40 is the largest internal radiation source.  Radon is low in ventilated rooms, and the impact from cosmic rays is vanishingly small. Tests on high terrestrial background levels dont show elevated health problems. Taken all together we can put the TESTED, (not ICRP extrapolated) danger from background radiation near zero.   True background radiation does not include bomb test fallout, diagnostic x-rays, nuclear power plant emissions etc
 
Reply
#3
Code, your view may not be the erroneous view.  The ECRR was sound science.  Adopting the ECRR recommendations would put nuclear power plants and processing centers out of business.  Nuclear was known to have deleterious health effects from the start but the price was to be paid by everyone for the elites to have their atomic toys.  The authorities will look no further than the ICRP recommendations even if off by a factor of 1000.  

(01-03-2018, 05:51 PM)Code Wrote: For me,  unless one is trying to uncover secret fallout releases, the more realistic approach is to take anti cancer herbs and minerals and just forget about the measurement.   If one is unlucky to be near a meltdown, like Fukushima, then ones life is screwed.  Quick iodine and evacuation is the only option.   Living downwind or close to power plants would be a reason to measure, in case one has iodine on hand and the car packed and ready

Add to that; detoxing from all the heavy metals in the environment, avoid foods that absorb radionuclides; don't live near or downwind from a nuclear power plant in the first place.  

I recommend iodine supplements to detox from bromides and chlorine.  I have a bottle of Lugol's solution on hand to counter radio-iodine releases.  
http://caferadlab.com/thread-1547.html?highlight=iodine

The more information we can get out to the public the harder it will be for the nuke authorities to keep the blinders on the people.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#4
Horse and Code,

I agree.

In my opinion dose is a very poor way of equating risk from radiation exposure, but it is all we have at present.

Most western Geiger counters are only tuned to Cesium-137.

The Geiger counter environment dose reading in Rem or uSv etc., is only accurate if your are only being exposed to Cesium-137.

The Geiger counter dose measurement is inaccurate for all other isotopes that may be present in the Geiger counter monitoring environment.

The dose amount is only accurate for the isotope the Geiger counter has been calibrated for.

Some Geiger counters allow you to recalibrate the dose measurement for different isotopes.

Once you ingest or inhale a radioactive isotope the whole dynamic changes.

Breathing in or ingesting radioactive contamination can increase the risk factor by a huge amount.

Once an external radioactive isotope is ingested you are not only dealing with a vastly greater radiation exposure to body tissue at a cellular level, you can also be exposed to a material that is also very chemically toxic.

The whole dose system is corrupt, and designed to lessen the publics perception of the real risks.
CafeRadLab  Free Guides and Resources For Everyone Here!

Get Prepared For Earth Changes!

The purpose of life is to learn to express your personal energy Creatively and Lovingly!


 
Reply
#5
(01-03-2018, 10:32 PM)vital1 Wrote: Most western Geiger counters are only tuned to Cesium-137.

The Geiger counter environment dose reading in Rem or uSv etc., is only accurate if your are only being exposed to Cesium-137.

Vital1   I think this is not true....the sievert is already an assumed dose coefficient. The danger is perhaps 6x or 600% greater than that ICRP dose coefficient for cesium137.   (not to be confused with the ballpark 600 times or 60,000% greater toxicity of fallout than assumed by the ICRP)

One has to consider the psychological response to the readings.   IF background is not from cesium, and probably is a small component, then any rise in readings...if its from fallout or nuke meltdowns is incomparably larger.  People cant wrap their heads around this fact.   from 30 to 60 cpm is always going to SEEM twice as bad....where the true ratio is thousands...even infinitely worse. No hyperbole!

WHy so high?  Background toxicity is less than assumed by the ICRP model, perhaps even beneficial to health, while fallout is far worse than the model.
 
Reply
#6
I understand what you are saying.

My point is that the way Geiger counters measure dose in rem or uSv is flawed to start with, even before you even consider, "The danger is perhaps 6x or 600% greater than that ICRP dose coefficient for cesium137."

Whether we looking at CPM or sieverts Geiger counters at best they tell you is if environmental background radiation levels are increasing or not. Their not indicating the true risk factors. Their design can't do that.

If a Geiger counter indicates an increase is happening in a once stable background, at least you know something is happening. That you should take notice and take remedial actions. Without it you are completely blind to what is happening in your environment.

They are a flawed instrument to start with, but its all we have at present.
CafeRadLab  Free Guides and Resources For Everyone Here!

Get Prepared For Earth Changes!

The purpose of life is to learn to express your personal energy Creatively and Lovingly!


 
Reply
#7
ECRR dose coefficients http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf

ICRP Compendium of dose coefficients
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...5313000110



For some radioisotopes, the ICRP  vs. ECRR (organism with DNA) adult effective doses are nearly the same.

Cs-134- ICRP: 19 nSv/Bq ECRR: 20 nSv/Bq
Pb-210- ICRP: 690 nSv/Bq ECRR: 700 nSv/Bq
Po-210- ICRP:1200 nSv/Bq ECRR: 1200 nSv/Bq
Am-241- ICRP: 200 nSv/Bq ECRR: 200 nSv/Bq

 radon = 0.017 mSv/y for 1 Bq/m3

For some radioisotopes, the ECRR argues for a far stronger interpretation of the actual internal biological harm per becquerel:

Ra-226- ICRP: 280 nSv/Bq ECRR: 2800 nSv/Bq
Co-60 – ICRP: 3.4 nSv/Bq ECRR: 35 nSv/Bq
Sr-89 – ICRP: 2.6 nSv/Bq ECRR: 26 nSv/Bq
I-131 – ICRP: 22 nSv/Bq ECRR: 110 nSv/Bq
Cs-137- ICRP: 13 nSv/Bq ECRR: 65 nSv/Bq
Pu-239- ICRP: 250 nSv/Bq ECRR: 2500 nSv/Bq (not u particle)

And for other radioisotopes, the ICRP's understated figures can only be attributed to criminal junk science and utter lack of morality:

Sr-90 – ICRP: 28 nSv/Bq ECRR: 9,000 nSv/Bq
U-238 – ICRP: 45 nSv/Bq ECRR: 84,000 nSv/Bq (ingestion)
U-238 – ICRP: 45 nSv/Bq ECRR: 840,000 nSv/Bq (inhalation)
U-238 – ICRP: 45 nSv/Bq ECRR: 8,400,000 nSv/Bq (u particle)
Pu-239- ICRP: 250 nSv/Bq ECRR: 750,000 nSv/Bq (u particle)
Te-132- ICRP: 3.8 nSv/Bq ECRR: 1,100 nSv/Bq

some interesting doses

 0.01 mSv: living near a nuclear plant for one year 

 0.036 mSv: eating one banana per day for a year     Note thats three and a half times as much radiation dose as living next to a power plant...which has been shown to elevate birth defects.
 
 0.1 mSv: living in a brick house instead of a wood-frame house for one year    yes, if you thought eating bananas was dangerous, living in a brick house is 10x worse than living next to a nuke plant. Glad I have my geiger!

but thats not the worst of it....1,000 Bq: one kg of coffee.   Just...back away...think happy thoughts

K-40 is not a mutagen
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3909148
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)