It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
I feel that I should note, that THIS:
Was the simplified version of calculating your effective dose of radiation.
I left out the different decay paths of tritium (I only used the most common) and averaging out their energy level, and a more complete explanation of flux density and the inverse square law.
Thanks for the contribution
In your explanation..your point of exposure is a 1 centimeter sphere correct?
But doesn't the radiation travel by particles and not radiation as put off by a light bulb? So if a big wind carries more you get more even if at a distance?
You confusing radioactive contaminants with the radiation given of by the radioactive isotopes.
The contaminantss can spread by wind, water and a lot of diffrent ways.
Like any SI unit, Bq can be prefixed; commonly used multiples are kBq (kilobecquerel, 103 Bq), MBq (megabecquerel, 106 Bq), GBq (gigabecquerel, 109 Bq), TBq (terabecquerel, 1012 Bq), and PBq (petabecquerel, 1015 Bq). For practical application, 1 Bq is a small unit; therefore, the prefixes are common
Thank you. I was wondering why do they have that website, what is its purpose?
isn't 1/4624. It's 2^-68.
Didn't check the rest of the math but the halving part makes the dose less than your estimate by about 18 orders of magnitude
But your statement about how you'd calculate the dose seems reasonable at first glance.
Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
This Japanese real time map of radiation from Japan seems to have more of the darker colors hitting us on the West Coast US then it did before, if the incoming is constant should there not be a build up of particles?