• 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
Quantum Pendant Scalar Technology
#21
(08-22-2018, 06:42 PM)Horse Wrote:
Quote:The fact that X-rays and α-particles induced different alterations of miR-21 expression suggests that different types of radiation induce different gene expression and signaling.

Taken together, these results suggest that the radiation quality-dependence of bystander effect may be associated with the TGF-β1-Smad2 pathway and the change of the miR-21 level in irradiated cells.

There you go Code.  Proof of a bystander effect caused by alpha radiation and the cellular mechanism employed.  Quality, indeed, of the type of radiation. The thorium pendant emits alpha radiation, definitely a hazard if a bit of it was ingested or inhaled in the making or disposal of the pendant.  

Cute little video.  I don't want my proteins to die.

Below is a Thorium-232 gas mantles Gamma scintillator test. In it I provide more details of the different Thorium-232 decay daughter isotopes, X-rays and Gamma energies. Thorium-232 decay daughter isotopes emit, X-rays, Gamma, Beta and Alpha radiation.


Be aware that the Pancake Geiger counter and the Gamma Scintillator only detect part of the radiation that is present. Their efficiency of detection for different isotopes varies widely. As an example in the chart below the NaI(Tl) Gamma radiation Scintillator detector may have a ~50% efficiency at detecting the Lead-212 77 keV X-ray, and only ~7% efficiency at detecting Thallium-208 at 583 keV.

What you see on your radiation test equipment display only shows part of the radiation that is present! Each test instrument is like wearing glasses with a different colour filter, it only shows you a small part of reality.

[Image: Thorium-mantle-TV67-calibration-110415-3000.jpg]
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
#22
Hi Horse.  Well when you describe it, it all seems to make sense.  I would almost feel goofy to question the standard assumptions.  The danger of the pendant is obviously due to the known bad boy of radiation, alpha, and particles ingested or breathed would deliver the potent radiation as measured right into the body.   

Not so fast buckaroo.  I note that Busby suggests the danger of radiation from natural uranium is not necessarily high and that uranium exposure is dominated by somewhat ubiquitous presence in mineral water. "With specific activity of about 14 MBq/kg-1uranium has been considered to be a low cancer risk"  
"routine ingestion of water at the high end of the EPA limit should not result in doses
greater than some tens of μSieverts. The Royal Society (2001) calculated that that a
continuous daily contamination by 1 mg will eventually result in a steady-state
kidney concentration of 12 mg l-1. Since this would result in microSieverts, the
Royal Society and World Health Organisation (WHO) dismissed the concerns of the
Gulf War veterans who suffered from Gulf War Syndrome. "

Moreover, its not due to alpha radiation or heavy metal toxicity in the normal sense. 

Of course Busby goes on to explain the photoelectric effect.  He theorizes the danger comes from a secondary effect from gamma via this effect but that the size is crucial.  "the  photoelectric  enhancement  of  incident  
gamma  radiation  is  only  significant  for  particles  of  diameter  less  than  about  5  μdiameter."



https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.do...AL_ASP.pdf

I guess its a question of degree of danger.  I would like to know...how does the radiation from the pendant compare to radiation from say a granite counter top, and how does this compare in health damage to say the minute lead quantities that dust off wine cork foil?  Its an alarming measurement of radioactivity, yet the damage is likely not to come from that measured radiation.

A measurement of radiation is always cause for concern.  Yet the interpretation of it is far from intuitive. The dose coefficient may vary by a factor of 10,000,  invalidating many first pass, seemingly straight forward interpretations of a radiation measurement.
 
Reply
#23
Code, what I can make sense of is a complex RF communication system, various electronic circuits working together to receive and transmit information; a simple radio.  It helps me understand the electrical part of biology.  Different jargons and mechanisms but essentially the same functions being described.  To try to understand what an electron is and what it's properties are takes a toe dip into quantum mechanics.  Dive right in to quantum mechanics to understand sub-atomic beta and alpha particles where standard assumptions are still just assumptions.  Busby explains photons and theorizes.  He knows more than I do.  The link you gave didn't work for me though.  

Degree of danger, compare the pendant to a granite counter top.  Granite contains varying amounts of radioactive material.  Some granite might read quite high.  As Vital1 points out - What you see on your radiation test equipment display only shows part of the radiation that is present!  Dose coefficient as calculated by the ICRP was lowballed for the industry's protection, not for the protection of health.  Exposure dose would be more useful to determine the degree of danger.  
1.  What radioactive source you're exposed to.
2.  Distance from the source, external or internal exposure.
3.  Time, how long you're exposed.  
Use a dosimeter to measure your own personal absorbed dose of external ionizing radiation.  Avoid internal exposures.  Follow ECRR recommendations and dose coefficients instead of the ICRP's.  Watch the Olympics on TV instead of going to Japan.  Don't eat Chernobyl apples.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#24
Horse,  the main reason we would take a measurement of say the pendant is to determine how radioactive it is so we can judge its danger.  Should we wear it or store it in lead?   So we need to adjust the graph to reflect the dose coefficient so we can get a visual idea of this danger from our graph.  Looking at Vital1s graph, it looks kind of high...

The ECRR gives a dose coefficient of 8,400,000 nSv/Bq for an internal micro particle of less than 5 microns.  A red blood cell is about that size.  So once you make the adjustments for your geiger measurement efficiency, then you redraw the graph accounting for the dose coefficient.  You should know how big a piece of paper you will need for this.

The danger from that small diameter dust of uranium is given as 1,354,838. times the value of  k40 .  We can then calculate how big the paper needed. If the graph on Vital1's monitor is five inches high, then the adjusted graph needs to be 105 miles high.   Himalayas are 5.5 miles high, so  19x higher than himalayas. 

Of course that is the danger of the uranium fraction of the volcanic rock based pendant if it were micronized and ingested. From what I understand from Busby's theory,  the radiation danger is coming mainly from background gamma radiation via secondary emission of photoelectrons, not alpha.  Electrons...

It happens that volcanic rock is often high in thorium, uranium and potassium.  Those are the most common sources of earth background radiation.  Black sand beaches may be high in radioactivity.  The lava rock sand or powder that the pendant was made out of might, for example, be from a black sand beach.  Now the question becomes, how dangerous is it to live and play on one of these radioactive beaches?

So you take your geiger counter, and your 105 mile high piece of paper, ready to draw your re-calibrated graph and go to Brazil, the famous Guarapari beach where you get 10 chest rays equivalent dose from the uranium and thorium rich sand.  How many pendants worth of radiation IS this? A certain amount of the sand MUST be powder in that fine 5 micron level. You know that one pencil can write 35 miles, so you have six pencils at the ready.  You have a lead body suit. You suspect the beach goers and nature herself of malicious intent...you have pre paid for your cremation.

The people living there might get in excess of 10 milisieverts per year.  Someone compare that to the dose received in Fukushima.  And, its the deadly alpha from uranium and radon.  You begin the tedious 105 mile high graph, but first do some reading on the epidemiology of these high radiation areas....

Cancer Mortality Among People Living in Areas With Various Levels of Natural Background Radiation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674188/

http://www.academia.edu/10309439/The_wor...cal_issues
 
Reply
#25
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674188/

Quote:Claims that elevated natural background radiation levels lead to cancer or early childhood deaths are unjustified and misleading. The risk to the individual and society that is estimated by adhering to the LNT model is greater than the risk from doses and dose rates at which the LNT model cannot be validated.
Assumes cancer to be the only risk factor.  Mentions in conclusions early childhood deaths but I must have missed that in their studies analysis.  General term radiation used - what type?  I live in a region with a high natural background.  Not a statistical concern, ok, but I try not to camp on uranium mine tailings and you won't see me on the Rocky Flats nature trail.  Radon gas is a well known widespread problem and efforts are on-going to mediate the risk. The region does have the highest rates of MS in the country.  

http://www.academia.edu/10309439/The_wor...cal_issues

Fixed the links.  Chores now, more later.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#26
Horse and everyone.  Excuse me for hammering the point on radiation measurement.  I guess Im waiting for someone to say 'wow, that 105 mile high graph really makes me think about geiger measurements differently'

Im not sure if its an inability to imagine or if we dont believe those ECRR dose coefficients.  I can hardly imagine something more misleading though, than a graph that looks 'pretty high' at five inches when it should either be 105 miles high, or perhaps a flat line, depending. 



  Using the geiger is more missleading than not using it, if ones concern is danger from a nuclear incident.  It totally low-balls the danger, yet we cant help but  believe the meter.  We simply are unable to imagine the real representative graph might be as high as 105 miles.  (In that extreme case, it would be depleted uranium munitions dust. The ECRR gives a rough estimate that nuclear fallout is about 600x worse than standard dosimetry)


by the way, the radon danger is perhaps not as high as one might think.  

"Several new studies of radon, the radioactive gas known to cause cancer and found to be seeping into millions of homes across the country, have uncovered little evidence linking household exposure to disease,"

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/06/scien...evels.html

and even 
Exposure To Low Levels Of Radon Appears To Reduce The Risk Of Lung Cancer, New Study Finds
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...122807.htm

I think its the wrong approach to immediately suspect cover up or hormesis promotion to benefit the nuke industry.  

Looking at Strontium 90, we see that the ICRP dose coefficient is 28 nSv/Bq  while the ECRR is 9,000 nSv/Bq.  321 times higher.   If you were reading a bunch of background and St-90 was buried in that five inch high graph you might not notice it.  You would believe, based on clicks and data, that you were perhaps relatively safe. If the graph were giving a true sense of danger, there would be a peak 134 feet high.  

Vital1 has a great advantage; he can differentiate the radionuclides.  From there its easy to apply the dose coefficients and get out your 150 ft, even 105 mile high paper to re-graph a true representation of risk.  But even then, its not straight forward. A lava sand pendent may be less damaging than a tropical black beach, and less harmful than handling a lead container to store it in.

Ok, ok, Ill say it.  Wow, that really changes my perspective on the value of Geiger readings and how faulty our intuitive grasp of danger can be!


=========================================================================


Naturally occurring oxidative DNA damages arise at least 10,000 times per cell per day in humans. Consider that you might have 50 trillion cells or more, thats a lot of DNA damage caused by oxygen! This many;  500,000,000,000,000,000 DNA damages per day in a person from oxidative stress.

You have 10 double strand breaks per cell cycle which could be 24 hours as a reference, although highly variable.  Trillions of double strand breaks!  

This highlights the potential delusion of thinking about radiation danger in the usual way.  If you hit one  single cell with a microbeam of radiation in a petri containing 10,000 cells 1000 of them fall over dead.  Or not!  It all depends and a geiger wont tell you. 


The dose coefficient is the thing.  Busby has said that as a very rough guide, you can multiply the ICRP dose by 600 to get a better sense of danger from a nuclear event.  That means that if you are taking daily measurements, and your meter is fluctuating around 3 inches high, and one day it fluctuates  3.2 inches high, you may have to re draw it  to have peaks of 100 to 300 inches tall.   So get that really big graph paper!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_damage_(naturally_occurring)
 
Reply
#27
Code, about that big graph paper, just adjust the scale.  I do understand your conundrum but I don't have the answer to it either.  This will probably annoy the Geiger people but the instrument is not that useful as a guide to LL fallout.  If a nuclear event happened you would get an alert of the Cesium when a dangerous cloud passed by, but probably too late to run away.  It's just not that sensitive an instrument.  We could use better radiation detection equipment that's affordable to the masses.  Lucas has made contributions here discussing radiation detection instruments.  I thought the bubble detector was nifty.  After Fuku I looked at our taxpayer funded Radnet.  I thought it was a joke and MVB has an archive that fills us in on just how bad a joke it's been.  Just measuring a small sample does not tell you much about the real world.  It's nice to read all these papers with all these careful radiation measurements made in a lab and all the extrapolations they make.  In the Rocky Flats lawsuit - testing the land for plutonium with a Geiger counter only.  Only a handful of samples were sent to a lab for alpha testing to detect plutonium.  Ok'ing land that had not even been swept with a Geiger. It's the scale, Code, just adjust the scale.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#28
Horse,  adjust the scale.  Of course.  So if the graph representing the uranium hot particle was 12 inches high instead of 105 miles, you need to reduce the other radionuclides to about 0.000001 inches tall, which is about 0.025 microns if Im correct.  This is a problem because you would need a pencil that can draw a line thinner than 1/200 the diameter of a red blood cell.  

Im not sure you could detect a nuclear event very easily with a geiger unless you were at really close range.  When radioactive iodine blew over from fukushima, it was probably on the order of 15 Bq/L in the water.   Thats just about what the background dose of radiation in the ocean is.  The iodine was about 10x greater than the cesium.

I think Vital 1 is measuring some indicative increases, but Im not sure if other people would notice much over the noise of background variations unless they were really focused on it.  They might intuitively feel by looking at the numbers that its a little bit worse than normal when in actuality the meter isnt calibrated and would have to have a screen 100 miles high.

that 100 mile high mountain is one to climb if we are to cogently debate the nuke community
 
Reply
#29
Be sure to read: The nuclear establishment cannot be trusted on radiation https://nation.cymru/opinion/the-nuclear...radiation/ posted in biological impacts.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#30
Well, we know we're barking against rigged numbers between ICRP and ECRR by a big factor.  Instrumentation available to anyone is limited in scope as well as coverage compared to what the military and researchers have available.  Statistical death and disease modeling provides cover for the real life tragedies that unfold in the ensuing years.  The Fuku radio-iodine release is a case in point.  The warnings came too little, too late.  It was three days before evacuations were started at Fuku.  The Japanese had already absorbed an Iodine dose.  Politicians declared the US safe, raised allowable radiation levels, turned off Radnet, and headed for the Southern Hemisphere.  The radio-iodine mixed into the background soup of radiation, hardly noticeable as you say, but an element that shouldn't be in there and that targets the thyroid and endocrine system.  Other radioactive elements got mixed in as well, cesium, strontium, plutonium, the whole dirty reactor times four.  The amplitude of the background didn't change much but the reactor-made elements are toxic ingredients that weren't there before.  They say it's less than background, don't worry, but they don't even mention those mountainous coefficients in toxicity of the new background.  They've done the experiments, they have the real numbers, and they knew how much to adjust the multiplier to hide it.  

Adjusting the scale on test equipment just keeps the signal on the screen.  I could get lost in all those too big or too small numbers and they keep us lost by adjusting the scale without telling us the real multiplier to use.  If the ICRP scale is correct no noticeable effects from radiation; no increase in infant mortality, no heart disease, diabetes, neurological problems, no cancers.  If the ECRR scale is correct we would see increases of these health problems in affected populations.  If increases in death and disease are observed it can easily be blamed on other industrial toxins or the other favorite, bad lifestyle choices.  I would argue that debating the nuke community is rather pointless, they won't change their minds.  What I think we can do is educate people to the radioactive numbers game.  

New lyrics for an old song.  
How many meltdowns will it take till they know that too many people have died.  
The answer, my friend, might be blowing in the wind.  
The answer might be blowin' in the wind.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#31
In Japan, Perinatal mortality in areas contaminated with radioactive substances started to increase 10 months after the nuclear accident relative to the prevailing and stable secular downward trend. These results are consistent with findings in Europe after Chernobyl.

 Findings from the initial round of screening, completed in April 2015 and released in August 2015, showed that nearly 50% of the 300,476 subjects had solid nodules or fluid-filled cysts on their thyroids.  “an approximately 30-fold increase”

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/m...-fukushima

list of some of Joseph Manganos papers suggesting increase illness from low level fallout (including radon and Fukushima)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Mangano3
Discussed at zeroHedge
https://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/20...a-hawaii-o

I guess they remain disputed by some, as you can see in Scientific American and elsewhere.  He has a response to critisim here
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...orrelation
 
Reply
#32
Looks like the ECRR scale is more representative of the real life situation than the ICRP scale.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#33
20 years ago the lead foil wine cork wrappers were banned when it was discovered that minute lead dust that settled on the bottle would fall into your drink.   Meanwhile four nuclear reactors can explode and spew radioactive heavy metal hot particles around the globe and its perfectly fine, as shown by measurements.

Some progress; at least we know now not to eat the lead paint
[Image: Dutch-boy-lead-paint-ad.jpg?fit=550%2C456]
 
Reply
#34
Lead is pretty toxic to humans even at low doses measured in ppm.  You probably wouldn't get a lead pendant for you or your kids to try to block EMF even if it's commonly used to shield from radiation.  Radioactive elements are probably more damaging to health than lead.  The yytrium replacement for the thorium in gas lantern mantles can still cause lung and liver damage and they just don't burn as bright, the thorium ones are still on the market.  Industry has found way too many useful properties in different radioactive elements to quit using them.  Along the way, workers in industries suffer various health problems from the many different toxic and radioactive elements used to make or that are in the products before the consumer shows any symptoms and demands change.  

Lead and thorium both stay in the body for years.  

"The biological halftime of Th deposited in bone is several years (Taylor et al., 2000)."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pha...ce/thorium

"Lead in bone has a biological half-life of about ten years."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_half-life

If you accumulate it faster than you get rid of it, there is ever increasing damage.  

Biological age determines how much damage will be done as young bodies are absorbing more minerals and chemicals than older bodies do.  

Like most things in life, it's not just whether something's good or bad, but the circumstances that determines the outcome.  

Code - Horse,  the main reason we would take a measurement of say the pendant is to determine how radioactive it is so we can judge its danger.  Should we wear it or store it in lead?  

We can take a measurement to determine the metals in the pendant and it's radio-activity. Since it was a sample of Thorium that Vital1 could use for calibrating his test equipment, I'd want it shielded rather than hanging around my neck.  The pendants intended purpose was to protect from EMF and it doesn't do that at all.  Its use then as a decorative necklace for an adult isn't so dangerous since Alpha won't penetrate skin.  Thorium daughter's Beta emissions might burn skin and tissue.  The unintended uses when a kid plays with one or a baby sticks one in its mouth and sucks on it could be very dangerous.  I wouldn't want one lying around the house.  

Code -  Meanwhile four nuclear reactors can explode and spew radioactive heavy metal hot particles around the globe and its perfectly fine, as shown by measurements.

Fuku TEPCO's interpretation of the measurements based on those ICRP multipliers is faulty. The evidence of radiation damage to health from Chernobyl's meltdown led to ECRR corrected multipliers.  We're seeing the same radiation related health problems in the Japanese populations contaminated by Fuku just from the limited health surveys and statistics made available as well as from anecdotal sources.  Government leaders and nuclear industry leaders have no reason to tell people the truth.  They have every reason to keep lying to say its safe and everyone can just get back to work.  The whole Northern Hemisphere is contaminated with Fuku hot particles.  Vital1 has detected some drifting into the Southern Hemisphere.  I don't think the ICRP or the ECRR take into consideration the effects on the rest of the biota; aquatic species and animals, plants, insects, microorganisms, that got dosed and how that will affect us in other ways.  

I liked the graphic that Pia put up on quantum physics, though I think the chasm of ignorance would be the largest slice of the pie.  They made it smaller so they could fit what they knew in the graphic. The IR antenna showed that geometry is critical to the measurement.  Your graphic looks like something I saw back in the late fifties.  Sad the way they market ignorance when there's so much to learn.  I'm used to reading instruments and trying to figure out what the measurement can tell us so I appreciate vital1's readings and his posts on what they mean.  I've been given some of these EM protectors but I never thought some might be radioactive material.  I've always just thrown them away after the trade show. I couldn't believe that people are buying into them, probably the worst effect of the word 'radiation' on people.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#35
Horse, your points read and considered.  Im still left wondering If I communicated mine understandably.  

I cant make total sense of Vital1s instrument readout, but it appears to be 119 nSv/hr   which would be 1 mSv/year. Not that occupational dose guides are valid or anything but the acceptable is given as 50 mSv/yr.  Can you wear 50 such pendants by industry standards?  Like I say, Im confused by the readout.  Why does vital1 say 2170 CPM above background when the readout says 109 CPM?   Taking a differnt approach, using 2170 CPM and arbitrarily 30% efficiency of detection, I get something like 120 becquerels coming off the pendant.  Now your body has 5000 becquerels. 

But regardless, the point is that the real danger is not represented nor easily intuited. We dont know if its quite dangerous or not at all from the measurement.  We know that handling the lead storage container is dangerous.  Even lead cork foil is banned. But we dont know how dangerous 119 nSv/hr is until we find the right dose coefficient and re calibrate the graph. 

Im not up on dosimetry...how dangerous IS the pendant, radiologically? We talked about the black sand beach, and whether this pendant was made out of a similar material.  Did you consider if the pendant was less or more dangerous than lying on a black sand beach?  Should you bring a lead radiation shield to the beach?

The graphic example of how big a truly representative graph of the right size and kind of uranium...105 miles tall, (or conversely, how small the danger of background would be compared to a 12 inch high uranium graph, 1/200 the size of a red blood cell)  didnt seem to register. 

Horse said " I'd want it shielded rather than hanging around my neck.  The pendants intended purpose was to protect from EMF and it doesn't do that at all."

I reiterate the points I made earlier.  The shield, if lead, is possibly more dangerous than the pendant (I dont know but the graph doesnt show me). Regarding its usefulness,  the level of electromagnetic effect from cell phones and such is at a quite low level, possibly below any thermal effect, and it is at these low levels, where information is more important than power, that a device which does not shield electromagnetism, yet has some interaction with the body, COULD have an effect.  We mentioned the Lakhovsky coil. Ive experimented...it does something, yet science scoffs at the possibility it can.    Another example....I hesitate to bring up the widely disparaged naturopathy, but Hulda Clark for example used an electronic 'dowsing' method, the synchrometer.  She claimed 90% accuracy in blind testing of common substances....salt, sugar, chlorine etc.  Anyway, a simple coil of wire on her body was enough to alter this test accuracy.  

never underestimate the unknowns!   

Note to science students;   The word quack is used all too often.  Isnt history enough to show you that what was considered quackery became accepted science? Be skeptical....even of your own beliefs
 
Reply
#36
"Why does vital1 say 2170 CPM above background when the readout says 109 CPM?"

The 109 CPM is the background level at the end of the charting, after I had removed the pendant. The 2170 CPM is the peak of the chart minus the local background, when the pendant was placed on the detector.

No detector measures all the radiation present only a percentage of it. Most Geiger counter models in the west use Cesium-137 placed near the detector to tune the dose rate in uSv/hr, mR/hr etc., for that device. For these Geiger counters the dose shown on the Geiger counter display will be inaccurate for any other isotope detected in the environment, other than Cesium-137!

Different Geiger counter models can have very different sensitivities to different Isotopes.


"We know that handling the lead storage container is dangerous."

The lead storage container here is lined with tin.

"Did you consider if the pendant was less or more dangerous than lying on a black sand beach?"

11th October 2002 - Radioactive sand causes mutations in human DNA

Extracts:

The scientists identified 22 mutations in the mitochondrial DNA sequences of families living in the high-radiation area. By comparison, a control population living on white sand nearby only had one mutation. 

The research doesn't necessarily suggest a link between the 22 mutations and disease. "We intentionally analyzed a non-coding region of the DNA where mutations have no effect on health or on any other visible features," says Forster.

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
#37
thanks Vital1!

Is 150 Bq a rough approximation coming from the pendant?  Do you have a feel for how dangerous the pendant is?  Say compared to wearing a pound of coffee or something?
 
Reply
#38
(08-26-2018, 07:33 PM)Code Wrote: thanks Vital1!

Is 150 Bq a rough approximation coming from the pendant?  Do you have a feel for how dangerous the pendant is?  Say compared to wearing a pound of coffee or something?

I am not a health physicist so I am only expressing my opinion here.

I personally would not wear it or provide one to a family member or friend.

"Do you have a feel for how dangerous the pendant is?"

I take what I consider to be a very wise approach to radiation, The Precautionary Principle, keep your internal and external environmental radiation exposure as low as possible!
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
#39
Thanks Vital1.  The precautionary principle is smart.   Be careful when altering the natural state in any way because unknown factors may come into play.  For example, I wouldnt risk reducing my internal background radiation.

The pendant comes from lava material sourced from Japan. We saw in a recent article that the soil from the Fukushima region has 48–318 hot particles per gram. It would be interesting to put the pendant on polaroid film and see if there are points of radiation. Im also reminded of the black dust you have a sample of which probably contains radioactive fungus.


Here is an article written by Busby about hot particles in the UK.  He has a doozy of a hot particle generating 650,000 bq of radiation..

Busby begins with a  quote from Marilynne Robinson; "I am angry to the depths of my soul that the earth has been so injured while we were all bemused by supposed monuments of value and intellect, vaults of bogus cultural riches..."

https://theecologist.org/2017/mar/20/kil...sion-zones

Killer 'hot particle': Sellafield coast 'like Chernobyl and Fukushima exclusion zones'

“Plutonium is one of the most potent cancer producing agents known to man.
 
Reply
#40
(08-26-2018, 07:33 PM)Code Wrote: thanks Vital1!

Is 150 Bq a rough approximation coming from the pendant?

It would be actually much higher than that.

The scintillator Gamma radiation test result minus test chamber background was 230 Counts Per Second (CPS)

That is 230 Bq before you even adjust for the isotope detection efficiency differences of the scintillator test equipment.

If we were to use your suggested 30% efficiency for the scintillator test, it would work out at 767 Bq. This would be just for for the gamma component. (230 / 30 X 100 = 767)

This does not include the Beta and Alpha radiation the scintillator can't detect.

What you see on your radiation test equipment display only shows part of the radiation that is present! Each test instrument is like wearing glasses with a different colour filter, it only shows you a small part of reality.
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
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 2 Guest(s)