How much Radiation are we exposed to when flying ??
18 September 2006, 01:45 PM
#32
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Leslie
Not only a troll, but a stalker as well!
Les
Les
18 September 2006, 09:44 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: From Kent to Gloucestershire to Berkshire
Posts: 2,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume a micro-civet is a miniscule, lithe bodied mostly arboreal member of the order carnivora? 
(check wikipedia if you haven't heard of civet cats!)
The thing with radiation exposure is that it is partially a stochastic effect - i.e. any exposure at all (i.e. normal background from walking around the streets with no x-rays, no flights, going nowhere near anything nuclear) could potentially have some serious effect on a small number of individuals, and very large exposures could potentially have no effect on a small number of individuals. It's impossible to say any dose is intrinsically safe, but similarly it's impossible to say doses around the legal permitted maximum (20mSv/year) are intrinsically dangerous, just that the probability of problems is slightly higher at the legal permitted maximum.
So, yes x-rays could have some impact on the animals, the same way that the radiation dose could cause harm to the pilots. However, the probability of dying from either is almost certainly a lot less than the probability of dying from a meteor strike whilst in bed, let alone the risk of dying whilst driving a car. Everything in life has a risk, this one is pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things.
As for the moon landings etc, I've still never seen what I'd consider to be 100% reliable figures for the doses in Van Allen belts etc; that's not to say they don't exist, just that I personally haven't seen them. Just be aware that Lead is of minimal benefit against Beta radiation (you get secondary Bremmstrahlung radiation when Lead absorbs Betas) or neutrons (which are absorbed best by lighter elements, e.g. hydrogen, but usually are shielded by water and/or concrete) so shielding is not quite as simple as "inches of lead".
(check wikipedia if you haven't heard of civet cats!)The thing with radiation exposure is that it is partially a stochastic effect - i.e. any exposure at all (i.e. normal background from walking around the streets with no x-rays, no flights, going nowhere near anything nuclear) could potentially have some serious effect on a small number of individuals, and very large exposures could potentially have no effect on a small number of individuals. It's impossible to say any dose is intrinsically safe, but similarly it's impossible to say doses around the legal permitted maximum (20mSv/year) are intrinsically dangerous, just that the probability of problems is slightly higher at the legal permitted maximum.
So, yes x-rays could have some impact on the animals, the same way that the radiation dose could cause harm to the pilots. However, the probability of dying from either is almost certainly a lot less than the probability of dying from a meteor strike whilst in bed, let alone the risk of dying whilst driving a car. Everything in life has a risk, this one is pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things.
As for the moon landings etc, I've still never seen what I'd consider to be 100% reliable figures for the doses in Van Allen belts etc; that's not to say they don't exist, just that I personally haven't seen them. Just be aware that Lead is of minimal benefit against Beta radiation (you get secondary Bremmstrahlung radiation when Lead absorbs Betas) or neutrons (which are absorbed best by lighter elements, e.g. hydrogen, but usually are shielded by water and/or concrete) so shielding is not quite as simple as "inches of lead".
18 September 2006, 11:48 PM
#34
Blimey......a scientist LOL
"Stochastic" versus "certainty" effects for radiation exposure....AND Bremmstrahlung (braking radiation for those without a German relative)..
Class !!
"Stochastic" versus "certainty" effects for radiation exposure....AND Bremmstrahlung (braking radiation for those without a German relative)..
Class !!
19 September 2006, 08:37 AM
#36
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Leslie
You know that it referred to you DCI!
Les
Les
20 September 2006, 01:36 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As nobody seems to have actually answered the original question:
Typical doses associated with activities:
UK to Japan return flight.......20 microSieverts
Return flight to Spain...........10 microSieverts
Aircrew (annual)..............2000 microSieverts
Manned space flight (daily).100-700 microSieverts
Typical annual UK dose from:
medical exposures...370 microSieverts
Total...................2600 microSieverts (85% from natural sources)
So the average number of medical exposures (don't know how many that is) equates to 37 return flights to Spain.
You could say that if the animal is x-rayed at each end of the trip then you are doubling its dose. But compared to background effects, assuming only a few flights per year, then the overall effect is negligible.
See here.
HTH
Typical doses associated with activities:
UK to Japan return flight.......20 microSieverts
Return flight to Spain...........10 microSieverts
Aircrew (annual)..............2000 microSieverts
Manned space flight (daily).100-700 microSieverts
Typical annual UK dose from:
medical exposures...370 microSieverts
Total...................2600 microSieverts (85% from natural sources)
So the average number of medical exposures (don't know how many that is) equates to 37 return flights to Spain.
You could say that if the animal is x-rayed at each end of the trip then you are doubling its dose. But compared to background effects, assuming only a few flights per year, then the overall effect is negligible.
See here.
HTH
Last edited by speedking; 20 September 2006 at 01:39 PM.
20 September 2006, 01:56 PM
#38
Pontificating
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by speedking
As nobody seems to have actually answered the original question:
Typical doses associated with activities:
UK to Japan return flight.......20 microSieverts
Return flight to Spain...........10 microSieverts
Aircrew (annual)..............2000 microSieverts
Manned space flight (daily).100-700 microSieverts
Typical annual UK dose from:
medical exposures...370 microSieverts
Total...................2600 microSieverts (85% from natural sources)
So the average number of medical exposures (don't know how many that is) equates to 37 return flights to Spain.
You could say that if the animal is x-rayed at each end of the trip then you are doubling its dose. But compared to background effects, assuming only a few flights per year, then the overall effect is negligible.
See here.
HTH
Typical doses associated with activities:
UK to Japan return flight.......20 microSieverts
Return flight to Spain...........10 microSieverts
Aircrew (annual)..............2000 microSieverts
Manned space flight (daily).100-700 microSieverts
Typical annual UK dose from:
medical exposures...370 microSieverts
Total...................2600 microSieverts (85% from natural sources)
So the average number of medical exposures (don't know how many that is) equates to 37 return flights to Spain.
You could say that if the animal is x-rayed at each end of the trip then you are doubling its dose. But compared to background effects, assuming only a few flights per year, then the overall effect is negligible.
See here.
HTH
Many Thanks, it had turned into a trolls tea party !
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM