5614 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 i added: russia and little nooks and crannies in some old nuclear bunkers!!! rocks reindeer ^'s moss AND i was summarising it all for him due to his post in another thread which was that he didnt know what to do with it... one whole big list like that might give him an idea.
YT2095 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 ok so other than "Rocks" what did you contribute? THAT is my point no list was needed, I assume he can read a thread? as for the "Nuclear Bunker" that would be the LAST place anyone would logaicaly look, they`re designed to keep that stuff OUT! LOL )
Gilded Posted December 28, 2004 Author Posted December 28, 2004 Hey by the way, do you happen to know how much for example the Chernobyl region measures these days? Also, it would be interesting to see how much background radiation increases when in an airplane 10km above the ground.
swansont Posted December 29, 2004 Posted December 29, 2004 You know, a Geiger-Müller tube detects only ionizing radiation, and as far as I'm aware, mobile phones produce merely electromagnetic radiation. "EM" and "ionizing" are not mutually exclusive. All photons are EM radiation. Photons above an eV or so (blue end of visible, and above, in frequency or energy) can be/are ionizing. Microwaves and mobile phones do not emit ionizing radiation, and so would not be detectible with a G-M tube.
Gilded Posted January 11, 2005 Author Posted January 11, 2005 Oops. I don't know what I was talking about again. ) But now I have a uranium rock! Measured about 0.80uSv at first, but I think the real amount is approximately 0.40uSv. Not too dangerous one might say. :>
5614 Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 one sec, you measure it as .8uSv but you think its .4uSv.... how does that work? you "think" its 1/2 of what it really is??? how can your thought be correct if you have measured it and it (your thought) is incorrect?
Gilded Posted January 12, 2005 Author Posted January 12, 2005 5614, as the decay rate isn't constant, sometimes it shows even over 1uSv/h, sometimes about 0.31uSv/h. Took a few pictures: http://www.freewebs.com/gildedchem/uraanie.jpg (trinitite pieces in the front, uranium ore in the back) http://www.freewebs.com/gildedchem/geigermittari.jpg (a whopping 1.04uSv/h, this pic might be good for scaring people who don't know too much about radiation ) ) Once again, copy the links to your address bar as freewebs blocks direct linking.
ed84c Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 People who dont know much about radiation are unlikely to understand the picture, to be fair.
Gilded Posted January 12, 2005 Author Posted January 12, 2005 Yeah, true. But I trust that when I tell them that the average background radiation here is about 0.1uSv, they start running around in panic. )
ed84c Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 Uranium Ore, Pitchblende? or is that radium....
ed84c Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 I remember YT saying wayyyyy back that if you filled a flask 1/3 full of glow in the dark paint that the energy released in its decay, would be enough to heat a cup of coffee.
swansont Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 I remember YT saying wayyyyy back that if you filled a flask 1/3 full of glow in the dark paint that the energy released in its decay, would be enough to heat a cup of coffee. Any glow-in-the-dark paint you can acquire these days is not likely to be radioactive.
YT2095 Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 I remember YT saying wayyyyy back that if you filled a flask 1/3 full of glow in the dark paint that the energy released in its decay, would be enough to heat a cup of coffee. if you`re going to quote me at least get it right!!!!!!! "Glow-in-the-dark" paint Dopped with RADIUM SALTS! please TRY and keep it in Context!!!! as radium stay roughly 1 degree Celcieus above ambient temp. if your going to quote me (or indeed ANYONE) include ALL of the facts, not just those that suit you!
ed84c Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 Suited me? How would these suit me? And btw, I was under the impression that nearly ALL glow in the dark paint was radium based
5614 Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 well then you are under an incorrect impression!
5614 Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 well the old ones (with radium) are radioactive, the new safer ones without radium in (using various substitues) are not radioactive. basically anything you get now will not be radioactive.
swansont Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 so which and which arnt? If it keeps glowing after long periods without any light to charge it up, it's radioactive. That means the phosphor is being charged up by a decay.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now