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

Groups > sci.physics > #690474 > unrolled thread

Re: Particle physics 2

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 13:55 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 08:06 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 12:42 -0400
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-14 11:52 -0500
          Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 13:04 -0400
            Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 13:08 -0400
              Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-14 12:40 -0500
                Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-14 16:01 -0400
              Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 05:39 -0700

#690474 — Re: Particle physics 2

Obviously, cosmic rays are not propagating through 1800 meters of bed rock. So it is questionable if cosmic rays are actually propagating through your body. How do you know if it is background radiation. Get background radiation or more like underground radiation.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#690596

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 4:55:59 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Obviously, cosmic rays are not propagating through 1800 meters
> of bed rock. So it is questionable if cosmic rays are actually
> propagating through your body. How do you know if it is background
> radiation. Get background radiation or more like underground radiation.

A good question. but consider:
if it is background radiation, at 1800 meters, the radiation will come
from all directions because the source is the surrounding rock.

if it is cosmic radiation (particles), there is a preferred direction
from above.

when tests are done, there is indeed an excess coming from above.
That excess increases as the testing is done close to the surface.
And even greater excess from above for tests done at higher elevations
(mountain tops).

This is opposite what would happen if the source is the bedrock.
On the mountain tops the bedrock is below, so the particle direction
would be up not down.

Since the observations shown the direction coming from above,
then we can rule out background radiation.

HTH,
  ed

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

#690602

On 6/14/2018 11:06 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 4:55:59 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Obviously, cosmic rays are not propagating through 1800 meters
>> of bed rock.

Obviously, actual measurements show that cosmic rays actually do go 
through substantial distances of bedrock. When actual data conflicts 
with one's hypothesis or belief, it's the belief that is wrong, not the 
measured data. Otherwise that is denial of reality, and denial of 
reality (delusions) is often considered a symptom of insanity, not science.

>> So it is questionable if cosmic rays are actually
>> propagating through your body. How do you know if it is background
>> radiation. Get background radiation or more like underground radiation.
> 
> A good question. but consider:
> if it is background radiation, at 1800 meters, the radiation will come
> from all directions because the source is the surrounding rock.
> 
> if it is cosmic radiation (particles), there is a preferred direction
> from above.
> 
> when tests are done, there is indeed an excess coming from above.
> That excess increases as the testing is done close to the surface.
> And even greater excess from above for tests done at higher elevations
> (mountain tops).
> 
> This is opposite what would happen if the source is the bedrock.
> On the mountain tops the bedrock is below, so the particle direction
> would be up not down.
> 
> Since the observations shown the direction coming from above,
> then we can rule out background radiation.

Yes that is something that confounded early radiation experimenters. 
They wanted a place with a low background level for more sensitive 
experiments. They knew rocks contained radioactive elements, so they 
figured things would work better if they did their work on mountaintops 
or balloons. To their surprise, the radiation _increased_. And it was 
coming from above, even to a large extent on the surface of the earth or 
below ground.

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

#690604

On 6/14/2018 11:42 AM, Volney wrote:
> On 6/14/2018 11:06 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 4:55:59 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> Obviously, cosmic rays are not propagating through 1800 meters
>>> of bed rock.
> 
> Obviously, actual measurements show that cosmic rays actually do go
> through substantial distances of bedrock. When actual data conflicts
> with one's hypothesis or belief, it's the belief that is wrong, not the
> measured data. Otherwise that is denial of reality, and denial of
> reality (delusions) is often considered a symptom of insanity, not science.
> 
>>> So it is questionable if cosmic rays are actually
>>> propagating through your body. How do you know if it is background
>>> radiation. Get background radiation or more like underground radiation.
>>
>> A good question. but consider:
>> if it is background radiation, at 1800 meters, the radiation will come
>> from all directions because the source is the surrounding rock.
>>
>> if it is cosmic radiation (particles), there is a preferred direction
>> from above.
>>
>> when tests are done, there is indeed an excess coming from above.
>> That excess increases as the testing is done close to the surface.
>> And even greater excess from above for tests done at higher elevations
>> (mountain tops).
>>
>> This is opposite what would happen if the source is the bedrock.
>> On the mountain tops the bedrock is below, so the particle direction
>> would be up not down.
>>
>> Since the observations shown the direction coming from above,
>> then we can rule out background radiation.
> 
> Yes that is something that confounded early radiation experimenters.
> They wanted a place with a low background level for more sensitive
> experiments. They knew rocks contained radioactive elements, so they
> figured things would work better if they did their work on mountaintops
> or balloons. To their surprise, the radiation _increased_. And it was
> coming from above, even to a large extent on the surface of the earth or
> below ground.

http://rocketsetc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/hab2-geiger2.png

https://meteolcd.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/dose_rate_versus_altitude.jpg

http://www.ansto.gov.au/cs/groups/corporate/documents/stillimage/mdaw/mda5/~edisp/acs017612.jpg

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

#690606

On 6/14/2018 12:52 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 6/14/2018 11:42 AM, Volney wrote:
>> On 6/14/2018 11:06 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 4:55:59 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> So it is questionable if cosmic rays are actually
>>>> propagating through your body. How do you know if it is background
>>>> radiation. Get background radiation or more like underground radiation.
>>>
>>> A good question. but consider:
>>> if it is background radiation, at 1800 meters, the radiation will come
>>> from all directions because the source is the surrounding rock.
>>>
>>> if it is cosmic radiation (particles), there is a preferred direction
>>> from above.
>>>
>>> when tests are done, there is indeed an excess coming from above.
>>> That excess increases as the testing is done close to the surface.
>>> And even greater excess from above for tests done at higher elevations
>>> (mountain tops).
>>>
>>> This is opposite what would happen if the source is the bedrock.
>>> On the mountain tops the bedrock is below, so the particle direction
>>> would be up not down.
>>>
>>> Since the observations shown the direction coming from above,
>>> then we can rule out background radiation.
>>
>> Yes that is something that confounded early radiation experimenters.
>> They wanted a place with a low background level for more sensitive
>> experiments. They knew rocks contained radioactive elements, so they
>> figured things would work better if they did their work on mountaintops
>> or balloons. To their surprise, the radiation _increased_. And it was
>> coming from above, even to a large extent on the surface of the earth or
>> below ground.
> 
> http://rocketsetc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/hab2-geiger2.png
> 
> https://meteolcd.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/dose_rate_versus_altitude.jpg
> 
> http://www.ansto.gov.au/cs/groups/corporate/documents/stillimage/mdaw/mda5/~edisp/acs017612.jpg

yeah I remember reading how airline pilots and flight attendants (and 
the passengers, of course) receive the equivalent of n dental X-rays of 
radiation on every cross-country flight. This is a bigger problem for 
the airline employees than occasional passengers, of course. I forgot 
what "n" is, or how long it takes sitting on your butt at sea level to 
"get" a dental X-ray.

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

#690607

On 6/14/2018 1:04 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 6/14/2018 12:52 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 6/14/2018 11:42 AM, Volney wrote:

>>> Yes that is something that confounded early radiation experimenters.
>>> They wanted a place with a low background level for more sensitive
>>> experiments. They knew rocks contained radioactive elements, so they
>>> figured things would work better if they did their work on mountaintops
>>> or balloons. To their surprise, the radiation _increased_. And it was
>>> coming from above, even to a large extent on the surface of the earth or
>>> below ground.
>>
>> http://rocketsetc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/hab2-geiger2.png
>>
>> https://meteolcd.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/dose_rate_versus_altitude.jpg 
>>
>>
>> http://www.ansto.gov.au/cs/groups/corporate/documents/stillimage/mdaw/mda5/~edisp/acs017612.jpg 
>>
> 
> yeah I remember reading how airline pilots and flight attendants (and 
> the passengers, of course) receive the equivalent of n dental X-rays of 
> radiation on every cross-country flight. This is a bigger problem for 
> the airline employees than occasional passengers, of course. I forgot 
> what "n" is, or how long it takes sitting on your butt at sea level to 
> "get" a dental X-ray.

Someone invented the "banana" scale for small amounts of radiation. One 
"banana" was the amount of radiation you get by eating an average 
banana, from the high levels of potassium (and thus K-40) they contain. 
You can rate such things as dental X-rays or spending a day in Quito 
Ecuador in "bananas" of radiation.

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

#690608

On 6/14/2018 12:08 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 6/14/2018 1:04 PM, Volney wrote:
>> On 6/14/2018 12:52 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 6/14/2018 11:42 AM, Volney wrote:
> 
>>>> Yes that is something that confounded early radiation experimenters.
>>>> They wanted a place with a low background level for more sensitive
>>>> experiments. They knew rocks contained radioactive elements, so they
>>>> figured things would work better if they did their work on mountaintops
>>>> or balloons. To their surprise, the radiation _increased_. And it was
>>>> coming from above, even to a large extent on the surface of the
>>>> earth or
>>>> below ground.
>>>
>>> http://rocketsetc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/hab2-geiger2.png
>>>
>>> https://meteolcd.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/dose_rate_versus_altitude.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.ansto.gov.au/cs/groups/corporate/documents/stillimage/mdaw/mda5/~edisp/acs017612.jpg
>>>
>>
>> yeah I remember reading how airline pilots and flight attendants (and
>> the passengers, of course) receive the equivalent of n dental X-rays
>> of radiation on every cross-country flight. This is a bigger problem
>> for the airline employees than occasional passengers, of course. I
>> forgot what "n" is, or how long it takes sitting on your butt at sea
>> level to "get" a dental X-ray.
> 
> Someone invented the "banana" scale for small amounts of radiation. One
> "banana" was the amount of radiation you get by eating an average
> banana, from the high levels of potassium (and thus K-40) they contain.
> You can rate such things as dental X-rays or spending a day in Quito
> Ecuador in "bananas" of radiation.
> 
> 

quite true,
I can measure the radiation increase by a banana, or a granite counter top

I did not find a well logging chart of ionizing radiation as one goes
below the surface of the earth. Im sure one is out there.

I think on the surface here, we have a minimum of ionizing radiation.
Enough to cause  a few mutations enabling genitic change.

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

#690622

On 6/14/2018 1:40 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 6/14/2018 12:08 PM, Volney wrote:
>> On 6/14/2018 1:04 PM, Volney wrote:
>>> On 6/14/2018 12:52 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 6/14/2018 11:42 AM, Volney wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yes that is something that confounded early radiation experimenters.
>>>>> They wanted a place with a low background level for more sensitive
>>>>> experiments. They knew rocks contained radioactive elements, so they
>>>>> figured things would work better if they did their work on mountaintops
>>>>> or balloons. To their surprise, the radiation _increased_. And it was
>>>>> coming from above, even to a large extent on the surface of the
>>>>> earth or
>>>>> below ground.
>>>>
>>>> http://rocketsetc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/hab2-geiger2.png
>>>>
>>>> https://meteolcd.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/dose_rate_versus_altitude.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ansto.gov.au/cs/groups/corporate/documents/stillimage/mdaw/mda5/~edisp/acs017612.jpg
>>>>
>>>
>>> yeah I remember reading how airline pilots and flight attendants (and
>>> the passengers, of course) receive the equivalent of n dental X-rays
>>> of radiation on every cross-country flight. This is a bigger problem
>>> for the airline employees than occasional passengers, of course. I
>>> forgot what "n" is, or how long it takes sitting on your butt at sea
>>> level to "get" a dental X-ray.
>>
>> Someone invented the "banana" scale for small amounts of radiation. One
>> "banana" was the amount of radiation you get by eating an average
>> banana, from the high levels of potassium (and thus K-40) they contain.
>> You can rate such things as dental X-rays or spending a day in Quito
>> Ecuador in "bananas" of radiation.
>>
>>
> 
> quite true,
> I can measure the radiation increase by a banana, or a granite counter top
> 
> I did not find a well logging chart of ionizing radiation as one goes
> below the surface of the earth. Im sure one is out there.
> 
> I think on the surface here, we have a minimum of ionizing radiation.
> Enough to cause  a few mutations enabling genitic change.

Get a Geiger counter. Background readings for most places near sea level 
is about 15-20 clicks per minute. I don't know what it is on a mountain 
top. Neutrino's were discovered at the bottom of a salt mine so there 
was little radioactive rock around. I don't know what the background 
count was there either (though I probably did once).

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

#690705

On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 6/14/2018 1:04 PM, Volney wrote:
> > On 6/14/2018 12:52 PM, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 6/14/2018 11:42 AM, Volney wrote:
> 
> >>> Yes that is something that confounded early radiation experimenters.
> >>> They wanted a place with a low background level for more sensitive
> >>> experiments. They knew rocks contained radioactive elements, so they
> >>> figured things would work better if they did their work on mountaintops
> >>> or balloons. To their surprise, the radiation _increased_. And it was
> >>> coming from above, even to a large extent on the surface of the earth or
> >>> below ground.
> >>
> >> http://rocketsetc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/hab2-geiger2.png
> >>
> >> https://meteolcd.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/dose_rate_versus_altitude.jpg 
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.ansto.gov.au/cs/groups/corporate/documents/stillimage/mdaw/mda5/~edisp/acs017612.jpg 
> >>
> > 
> > yeah I remember reading how airline pilots and flight attendants (and 
> > the passengers, of course) receive the equivalent of n dental X-rays of 
> > radiation on every cross-country flight. This is a bigger problem for 
> > the airline employees than occasional passengers, of course. I forgot 
> > what "n" is, or how long it takes sitting on your butt at sea level to 
> > "get" a dental X-ray.
> 
> Someone invented the "banana" scale for small amounts of radiation. One 
> "banana" was the amount of radiation you get by eating an average 
> banana, from the high levels of potassium (and thus K-40) they contain. 
> You can rate such things as dental X-rays or spending a day in Quito 
> Ecuador in "bananas" of radiation.

just because I have the information handy:

dental x-ray 0.005 millisieverts per exposure. Maybe once per year.
Airline crew 3.1 millisieverts per year.
Also pilots are above nuclear power plant
workers who average 1.9 msv per year.
for comparison chest x-ray 0.1 msv and chest CT scan 7.0 msv
(Above from a SciAm statistics page)

The pilots get the equivalent of 620 dental x-rays per year.

Working out the per hour exposure:
By law pilots may not fly more than 1000 hours per year.
The average would be less. just to make the math easy,
if the average flight hours was 620 then they receive the
equivalent of one dental x-ray per hour.
The actual is likely something less. If pilots average
900 hours per year, the exposure would be one dental
x-ray per 1.45 hours flight time.
That number is likely closer to the real average.

And FYI the OSHA occupational limit still 50 msv per year.

Enjoy,
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web