Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #584210 > unrolled thread

How risky is low level Radiation ?

Started bySergio <invalid@invalid.com>
First post2016-06-10 10:20 -0500
Last post2016-06-10 21:40 +0000
Articles 9 — 5 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  How risky is low level Radiation ? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-10 10:20 -0500
    Re: How risky is low level Radiation ? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-06-10 12:06 -0700
      Re: How risky is low level Radiation ? Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 12:21 -0700
        Re: How risky is low level Radiation ? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-06-10 13:37 -0700
          Re: How risky is low level Radiation ? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-10 21:48 +0000
            Re: How risky is low level Radiation ? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-06-11 12:36 -0700
              Re: How risky is low level Radiation ? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 15:15 -0700
      Re: How risky is low level Radiation ? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-10 21:44 +0000
    Re: How risky is low level Radiation ? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-10 21:40 +0000

#584210 — How risky is low level Radiation ?

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-06-10 10:20 -0500
SubjectHow risky is low level Radiation ?
Message-ID<njelst$55s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Good Info on Radiation risk

http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/risk.htm


Another way of looking at risk, is to look at the Relative Risk of 1 in 
a million chances of dying of activities common to our society.


	Smoking 1.4 cigarettes (lung cancer)
	Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter
	Spending 2 days in New York City (air pollution)
	Driving 40 miles in a car (accident)
	Flying 2500 miles in a jet (accident)
	Canoeing for 6 minutes
	Receiving 10 mrem of radiation (cancer)

Adapted from DOE Radiation Worker Training, based on work by B.L Cohen, 
Sc.D.


Procedure | Dose (Sv)| Dose (mrem) |Fatal Cancer |# Cigarettes| #Miles

Chest xray
	3.2 x 10-5 	3.2 	1.3 x 10-6 	9 	23

Skull Exam
	1.5 x 10-4 	15 	6 x 10-6 	44 	104

Barium Enema
	5.4 x 10-4 	54 	2 x 10-5 	148 	357

Bone Scan
	4.4 x 10-3 	440 	1.8 x 10-4 	1300 	3200


[never smoke in a canoe after a Peanut and Jelly sandwitch in Colorado !]

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#584227

FromDouble-A <double-a3@hush.com>
Date2016-06-10 12:06 -0700
Message-ID<b81099e6-6b99-4aa8-8d34-9edec9f617ba@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#584210
On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 8:21:06 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> Good Info on Radiation risk
> 
> http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/risk.htm
> 
> 
> Another way of looking at risk, is to look at the Relative Risk of 1 in 
> a million chances of dying of activities common to our society.
> 
> 
> 	Smoking 1.4 cigarettes (lung cancer)
> 	Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter
> 	Spending 2 days in New York City (air pollution)
> 	Driving 40 miles in a car (accident)
> 	Flying 2500 miles in a jet (accident)
> 	Canoeing for 6 minutes
> 	Receiving 10 mrem of radiation (cancer)
> 
> Adapted from DOE Radiation Worker Training, based on work by B.L Cohen, 
> Sc.D.
> 
> 
> Procedure | Dose (Sv)| Dose (mrem) |Fatal Cancer |# Cigarettes| #Miles
> 
> Chest xray
> 	3.2 x 10-5 	3.2 	1.3 x 10-6 	9 	23
> 
> Skull Exam
> 	1.5 x 10-4 	15 	6 x 10-6 	44 	104
> 
> Barium Enema
> 	5.4 x 10-4 	54 	2 x 10-5 	148 	357
> 
> Bone Scan
> 	4.4 x 10-3 	440 	1.8 x 10-4 	1300 	3200
> 
> 
> [never smoke in a canoe after a Peanut and Jelly sandwitch in Colorado !]


What about dental X-rays?

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584228

FromMikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com>
Date2016-06-10 12:21 -0700
Message-ID<5879d252-37fa-4f92-a544-d853b5b3a6cb@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#584227
Very small exposure area, very low intensity, and rather minor tissue. Not very much of a hazard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584245

FromDouble-A <double-a3@hush.com>
Date2016-06-10 13:37 -0700
Message-ID<fc6bf007-2523-46d0-823f-78d439aabda6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#584228
On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 12:21:48 PM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
> Very small exposure area, very low intensity, and rather minor tissue. Not very much of a hazard.


I don't know.  A lot of people are getting lymphoma nowadays in the same general area where they have been exposed to repeated dental X-rays throughout their lives.

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584275

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-06-10 21:48 +0000
Message-ID<27pr2d-hd2.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#584245
Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 12:21:48 PM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
>> Very small exposure area, very low intensity, and rather minor tissue. Not very much of a hazard.
> 
> 
> I don't know.  A lot of people are getting lymphoma nowadays in the same
> general area where they have been exposed to repeated dental X-rays
> throughout their lives.
> 
> Double-A

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lymphoma

Radiation isn't even mentioned as a risk factor in any kind of lymphomas.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584353

FromDouble-A <double-a3@hush.com>
Date2016-06-11 12:36 -0700
Message-ID<34131411-1d07-46f6-802c-e62ee4f458ef@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#584275
On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 3:01:04 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 12:21:48 PM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
> >> Very small exposure area, very low intensity, and rather minor tissue. Not very much of a hazard.
> > 
> > 
> > I don't know.  A lot of people are getting lymphoma nowadays in the same
> > general area where they have been exposed to repeated dental X-rays
> > throughout their lives.
> > 
> > Double-A
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lymphoma
> 
> Radiation isn't even mentioned as a risk factor in any kind of lymphomas.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino


I see your site doesn't mention Aspartame as a risk factor either, which in pop culture is suspected as a cause.

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584396

FromnoTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com>
Date2016-06-11 15:15 -0700
Message-ID<a589c8fc-111d-4002-afe6-fc99fb2dde83@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#584353
NutrasweeT is just two aminos, of course;
most of those who are exposed to high natural background rads,
have the least cancer in general, but
not counting ultraviolet burning, I suppose

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584274

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-06-10 21:44 +0000
Message-ID<2vor2d-hd2.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#584227
Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 8:21:06 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>> Good Info on Radiation risk
>> 
>> http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/risk.htm
>> 
>> 
>> Another way of looking at risk, is to look at the Relative Risk of 1 in 
>> a million chances of dying of activities common to our society.
>> 
>> 
>>       Smoking 1.4 cigarettes (lung cancer)
>>       Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter
>>       Spending 2 days in New York City (air pollution)
>>       Driving 40 miles in a car (accident)
>>       Flying 2500 miles in a jet (accident)
>>       Canoeing for 6 minutes
>>       Receiving 10 mrem of radiation (cancer)
>> 
>> Adapted from DOE Radiation Worker Training, based on work by B.L Cohen, 
>> Sc.D.
>> 
>> 
>> Procedure | Dose (Sv)| Dose (mrem) |Fatal Cancer |# Cigarettes| #Miles
>> 
>> Chest xray
>>       3.2 x 10-5      3.2     1.3 x 10-6      9       23
>> 
>> Skull Exam
>>       1.5 x 10-4      15      6 x 10-6        44      104
>> 
>> Barium Enema
>>       5.4 x 10-4      54      2 x 10-5        148     357
>> 
>> Bone Scan
>>       4.4 x 10-3      440     1.8 x 10-4      1300    3200
>> 
>> 
>> [never smoke in a canoe after a Peanut and Jelly sandwitch in Colorado !]
> 
> 
> What about dental X-rays?
> 
> Double-A

If your dentist doesn't have one of the computer contolled, low dose,
highly focused machines and is still firing off an old film X-ray
blunderbus machine from behind a shield, find a new dentist.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584273

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-06-10 21:40 +0000
Message-ID<cnor2d-hd2.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#584210
Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
> Good Info on Radiation risk
> 
> http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/risk.htm
> 
> 
> Another way of looking at risk, is to look at the Relative Risk of 1 in 
> a million chances of dying of activities common to our society.
> 
> 
>        Smoking 1.4 cigarettes (lung cancer)
>        Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter
>        Spending 2 days in New York City (air pollution)
>        Driving 40 miles in a car (accident)
>        Flying 2500 miles in a jet (accident)
>        Canoeing for 6 minutes
>        Receiving 10 mrem of radiation (cancer)
> 
> Adapted from DOE Radiation Worker Training, based on work by B.L Cohen, 
> Sc.D.
> 
> 
> Procedure | Dose (Sv)| Dose (mrem) |Fatal Cancer |# Cigarettes| #Miles
> 
> Chest xray
>        3.2 x 10-5      3.2     1.3 x 10-6      9       23
> 
> Skull Exam
>        1.5 x 10-4      15      6 x 10-6        44      104
> 
> Barium Enema
>        5.4 x 10-4      54      2 x 10-5        148     357
> 
> Bone Scan
>        4.4 x 10-3      440     1.8 x 10-4      1300    3200
> 
> 
> [never smoke in a canoe after a Peanut and Jelly sandwitch in Colorado !]

Doesn't account for the differences between localized exposure and whole
body exposure or total exposure over time, which are highly relevant.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web