Radiation detection devices and procedures

[RobertEarl]

Last edited Thu Feb 28, 2013, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Here's a list about detection devices. Kind of complicated, wouldn't you say? Real science concerning Fukushima radiation would have had, oh say, a million of these types of badges, meters, rings, Geiger counters and more distributed. With a good recording and data bank setup. That would have given us some real science, eh?

Add on edit: Were we able to, in the interest of public safety, issue a plethora of detection devices, would that not make for good science when we have another nuclear accident?


Radiation Detection Devices
http://www.remm.nlm.gov/civilian.htm

Edit: <Many lines of text cut from original post and replaced with link to where it was copied from. >

[RobertEarl]

1. Not so easy, eh?

Last edited Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:10 PM - Edit history (1)

The simple explanation from some nuke science experts has been claiming that our dose and exposures from Fukushima have been little or nothing.

Well, after looking over this list of all the ways and the tools, and knowing that these tools have not been widely used, I have to wonder how anyone can tell us the truth.

I think that the nuke industry should be required to supply all citizens of the US with at least a few of the simple meters. Shouldn't cost more than a few hours profit of Palo Verde running.

[FBaggins]

2. Did you imagine that that made sense?

knowing that these tools have not been widely used

You "know" falsely. They have been extensively used.

[PamW]

6. More important..

FBaggins,

You are correct; those and OTHER instruments have been used extensively.

However, even more important is that they've been used by people who are trained in using them and understand radiation and how it is measured, and what those measurements mean.

The problem is that the anti-nukes won't listen to all the real scientists that have extensively studied the Fukushima accident. The anti-nukes won't listen because they don't like what the scientists tell them. The anti-nukes wanted the accident and consequences to be worse than they were.

Fukushima wasn't "bad enough" for their tender sensibilities.

PamW

[PamW]

5. Wouldn't be of any value.

RobertEarl says
I think that the nuke industry should be required to supply the all citizens of the US with at least a few of the simple meters.

RobertEarl,

You need more that just the equipment; you need the EDUCATION to use it.

Instead of having doctors and radiologists; why not have our insurance companies buy everyone a ultrasound unit, or a CAT scan, or X-ray machine.

Have you ever looked at an ultrasound? Could you make anything out of it without the help of your doctor or ultrasound technician?

Well having the instruments above would be just as WORTHLESS in the hands of amateurs. They wouldn't know when and when not any of those devices were useful, and under what conditions.

Ultrasound machines in the hands of inexperience amateurs is less than worthless. It gives people a false sense of understanding something when they are totally clueless.

No - it's best to have an ultrasound machine work in concert with a doctor and ultrasound technician so that the results from the machine can be meaningfully interpreted.

Likewise for the litany of devices you list. NONE of them are "turn-key" devices that can be used by inexperienced amateurs. Even some of the most basic survey meters require many, many hours of training before people can do meaningful measurements.

With out the knowledge to use those instruments; they are pretty much WORTHLESS in terms of getting useful information.

PamW

[RobertEarl]

7. I did not know that

In order to read a digital display showing the dose you have received one needs a degree in ultrasound?

Damn, I need a scientist to come tell me what the digits on my digital clock mean?

[Nihil]

12. That doesn't surprise me in the least.

> Damn, I need a scientist to come tell me what the digits on my digital clock mean?

In your case, probably yes.


> In order to read a digital display showing the dose you have received one needs
> a degree in ultrasound?

No but you *do* need to be capable of reading (and understanding what you've read)
which certainly goes against the evidence of your posting history.

[PamW]

13. You just PROVED my point!!!

RobertEarl,

You just proved my point!!! You don't understand what you are talking about.

The detector CAN NOT show you your dose. All the detector can do is
detect the radiation field; and tell you how many alpha, beta, gammas, or neutrons
are present.

But that is NOT your dose. Dose is the amount of energy absorbed per
unit mass; and dose effective also accounts for the different biological damage
that the different types of radiation do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorbed_dose

Absorbed dose (also known as total ionizing dose, TID) is a measure of the energy deposited in a medium by ionizing radiation per unit mass. It is equal to the energy deposited per unit mass of medium, which may be measured as joules per kilogram and represented by the equivalent SI unit, gray (Gy), or the antiquated CGS units, rad and rep. The absorbed dose depends not only on the incident radiation but also on the absorbing material: a soft X-ray beam may deposit four times more dose in bone than in air, or none at all in a vacuum.

In order to get DOSE you have to do additional calculations, and this is
where the education comes in.

Unfortunately we have people who are so clueless about the science and
don't understand it that they "think" ( term used advisedly ) that dose can be
read off of some dial.

WRONG!!! It is very much analogous to the ultrasound. The radiation detector
like the ultrasound image are data that go into the calculations and/or judgements
of a trained scientist or technician. The ultrasound just tells you what it sees,
but it can't evaluate the meaning of what it sees. ( I just had a diagnostic
ultrasound done on my cat. The ultrasound machine, which is the same type
used on humans, doesn't know whether it is looking at a human or a cat; so
it doesn't render a complete evaluation. We need the M.D. or the DVM to do that!)

Likewise, you need a trained scientist to tell you the meaning in dose using the
input from the radiation detector.

Geometry, materials, ...of the object or person whose dose we are concerned
about affect the calculation of dose. That's what the highlighted part of the
above reference to Wikipedia means; the dose is dependent upon what / who
is absorbing the radiation, not just what the radiation field is. The radiation
detector doesn't know those things; it can just detect radiation.

The whole process of determining dose is WAY, WAY more sophisticated
than someone like you could ever imagine. You have absolutely no way to
conceptualize what is involved.

That's why you should refrain from spewing outside your expertise. People
should know what they don't know. You should know that you don't know
diddly squat about science and technology, especially in the nuclear realm;
and you should avoid further demonstration that you don't know it.

Read it off a dial, indeed!!

PamW

[SidDithers]

3. Source for the OP list...

http://www.remm.nlm.gov/civilian.htm

Since the OP declined to source their information.

Sid

[RobertEarl]

8. Hello, Sid

Say Sid, do you agree with Pam here? Is it worthless to have a detection device, or not? Here's what you told me the other day.

SidDithers (25,411 posts)
5. Radiation isn't something that can be hidden, and is pretty easy to detect...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022414210#post5

And in another reply Sid claims:
SidDithers (25,411 posts)
14. Seriously?...

http://www.amazon.com/RADStickerTM-radiation-exposure-determining-dosimeter/dp/B004VJ06CI

Badges, dosimeters, counters. Any number of pieces of equipment can be used to detect radiation.

Sid

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022414210#post14

[SidDithers]

9. Hello bobby...

yes, elevated radiation levels around a suspected contaminated site would be easy to detect. Comparing readings to background is something that even you could probably do.

You and Pam are discussing detecting radiation from Fukushima, which is a whole different animal, bobby. Can you figure out why?

Further. I absolutely agree with Pam that spectroscopy is needed to detect contamination from Fukushima. I had the good fortune to study under Harry Taylor at the University of Toronto, who used a GeLi detector to analyze samples from Northern Canada for Cs contamination after Chernobyl.

Here's the paper if you're interested:
http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/1735

Sid

[RobertEarl]

10. No, Sid, I can't figure it out

Please be so kind as to tell me. You say radiation is easy to detect and Pam says no, not easy.

I really don't know what Pam is saying, except that only a scientist can tell you about any level of radiation around you. And you say just the opposite; that it is easy to detect.

Know this, too, as evidenced from posts above, that I want nuke power companies to supply radiation detection meters to all of America. Not for Fukushima, but for tomorrow.

[SidDithers]

11. No, I'm done teaching you for tonight...

You figure out why the two situations are different on your own.

Sid

[PamW]

14. Sid..I think you're going to have to tell him

Sid,

I would bet that you are going to have to tell him.

I would bet my cat could figure it out before RobertEarl figures it out.

PamW

[PamW]

4. You are NO SCIENTIST

RobertEarl,

ALL the equipment posted above is USELESS for seeing the fallout of Fukushima

Why don't you stick to what you know .... which is WHAT?

Leave the real science to the scientists. The fallout from Fukushima is down "in the noise" compared to the background radiation levels courtesy of Mother Nature.

The ONLY way you can detect the Fukushima fallout is by detecting the unique energy signature of the fission products dispersed by Fukushima. That means you have to do radiation spectroscopy. NONE of the devices you listed above are suitable for finding Fukushima fallout because NONE of them are sensitive to the energy signature of the radioactive nuclides.

May I suggest a Germanium crystal radiation detector and a Multi-channel Analyzer to collect the data.

You also need some good shielding so your measurements are not corrupted by background radiation.

You will also need an education in Poisson statistics if you are to accurately interpret the collected data.

Why do you post such flotsam to detail all the science that you don't know.

Why people trumpet their ignorance on public forums is beyond me.

PamW

[oldhippie]

15. I cannot take anything you post ...

.... seriously.

Really, your post in Meta and others have completely destroyed any credibility you may have had in my mind.

I am not a radiation scientist, but an engineer with decades of experience. I think I can be a pretty good judge of technical claims based on the evidence and argument presented. I don't see much support for any of your claims.

I am not saying that you are crazy. Just incredible. You may ignore me now.

[RobertEarl]

16. Hi...

My concern is not with an anonymous internet poster like you. My concern is with being radiated by emissions from nuke plants.

All you have ever done here is attack me, TICR. Never once That I Can Recall have you posted any science or even a will to discuss the matter.

But if you want, you can start now.

[RobertEarl]

17. I got a question for you, old hippie

And it is not about the hippie mantra of sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll.

It is this: Lets say you are a government engineer and someone comes to you at your office and tells you:


We told the Japanese Government and the reactor owner, TEPCO, that what they were doing was dumb. The reactor vendor for Unit 6, GE; which designed the reactors for Units 1-5 also, made clear to TEPCO and the Japanese regulators that what they were doing was dumb. They chose to ignore the company that designed their reactors.

What would you, as a government engineer, say about that, especially in light of the fact that 3 of the Tepco reactors blew up?

[oldhippie]

18. That's pretty easy .....

It doesn't even take any technical smarts at all, just common sense.

I, as a govt engineer, would have said, "Boy, it looks like the Japanese Government was dumb."

So what? Neither I nor any other govt engineer has any authority over the Japanese government. What I say or think about it has no effect whatsoever. What is your point?

And, actually, the reactors did not "blow up." (And please, don't try to tell me what "blowing up" means.)

[RobertEarl]

19. As an engineer?

So, Tepco and the government were dumb, is your professional opinion?

Technically, the reactors may, or may not have blown up.

Technically, the buildings surrounding the reactors blew sky high. So, you may be right about that.

That doesn't really make much difference. The question is: Can we trust nuke power plant owners and operators to not be dumb with such powerful tools? My answer, via Tepco is, fuck no!