Questions About Radiation
James Davis Nicoll
>
>>4. She claims there is a type of shrimp which naturally collects
>>polonium-210, and receives an annual dose of 100 rems. She specifically
>>mentions this is rems, not millirems. Is that true? It seems like
>>a lot to me.
>
>I'm not sure on this one, either. If you were to reveive 100 rems right now,
>I would doubt that you would be alive tomorrow, but if that dosage was spread
>out over a year, you'd probably only get sick. Generally the guidelines for
>people who work with radiation is 5 rems per year in the whole-body absorbed
>dose. But as for shrimp, I'm not sure...
Hmmm. Instantaneous doses of about 500 rem are need to kill about
50% of those exposed, and it takes about a month to do it. To kill within
a day takes higher doses, 1000s of rem, at least in humans. It wouldn't
surprise me if shrimp are less radiation sensitive than humans.
James Nicoll
Matthew J. Bernhardt
Having had to take a radiation safety course last semester in order
to work in the lab I work in now, I was given a handy radiation manual and
study guide. Following is the table of LD-50/30s for varying organisms:
(NOTE: LD-50/30 = Dose of radiation that is lethal to 50% of the exposed
population within 30 days.)
Species LD-50/30 (Roentgens)
Guinea pig 175-409
Dog 350
Goat 350
Man 350-450
Mouse 550
Rat 590-970
Monkey 600
Rabbit 800
Fowl 1000
Goldfish 2300
All of these numbers were arrived at experimentally, except for man.
Apparently, that range is an estimate, as precise experimental data are not
available for some strange reason. :-)
While shrimp are not given in this table, the high resistance of
goldfish to radiation lends credence to the idea that shrimp might be more
resistant.
Oh, on another note, I have another table on acute radiation syndromes,
but unfortunately, it is in units of Roentgens as well. But let's assume
a Rem and a Roentgen are approximately equivalent. In this case, an acute
dose of 1000 Rem would only kill in 4-7 days, due to gastrointestinal death.
Doses in the 10000-100000 Rem range would kill within 2 days, due to central
nervous system death. Doses exceeding 100000 Rem would bring instant molecular
death.
Just though you'd like to know.
*******************************************************************************
* Matt Bernhardt * "There is something fascinating about science. *
* Mad Scientist * One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out *
* University of Buffalo * of such a trifling investment of fact." *
* m...@acsu.buffalo.edu * - Mark Twain *
*******************************************************************************
James Davis Nicoll
>
> Having had to take a radiation safety course last semester in order
>to work in the lab I work in now, I was given a handy radiation manual and
>study guide. Following is the table of LD-50/30s for varying organisms:
>
> All of these numbers were arrived at experimentally, except for man.
Ah, beg to differ. There are data from populations of humans exposed
to radiation which were used to get the figures for humans, like those
people who were in Nagasaki and Hiroshima at the end of the Pacific Ocean
phase of WW II, enlisted person who took part in tests in the 50s and
people exposed to fallout in the Pacific.
>Apparently, that range is an estimate, as precise experimental data are not
>available for some strange reason. :-)
Unfortunately, not true. Accidents happen.
> While shrimp are not given in this table, the high resistance of
>goldfish to radiation lends credence to the idea that shrimp might be more
>resistant.
Um, shrimp and goldfish are about as different as shrimp and
humans.
> Oh, on another note, I have another table on acute radiation syndromes,
>but unfortunately, it is in units of Roentgens as well. But let's assume
>a Rem and a Roentgen are approximately equivalent. In this case, an acute
>dose of 1000 Rem would only kill in 4-7 days, due to gastrointestinal death.
>Doses in the 10000-100000 Rem range would kill within 2 days, due to central
>nervous system death. Doses exceeding 100000 Rem would bring instant molecular
>death.
> Just though you'd like to know.
You get some odd exception to the above. There was a worker who
got some absurd dose of radiation (I think he had reactor waste spilled on him
or something) who got real sick, but got better instead of dying. Be neat
to know how he did that.
James Nicoll
John De Armond
> All of these numbers were arrived at experimentally, except for man.
>Apparently, that range is an estimate, as precise experimental data are not
>available for some strange reason. :-)
Actually the LD50 dose for man is experimentally determined.
The subjects were the japanese under the atomic bomb
detonations, various victims of acute radiation exposure in
weapons research, medical accidents and isotope accidents. While
experiments were obviously not set up in advance, radiation
transport modeling is sufficiently refined that reconstruction
of the events can be done to a great deal of accuracy. LD50 for
man is generally now considered to be in the 500 REM range.
> Oh, on another note, I have another table on acute radiation syndromes,
>but unfortunately, it is in units of Roentgens as well. But let's assume
>a Rem and a Roentgen are approximately equivalent. In this case, an acute
>dose of 1000 Rem would only kill in 4-7 days, due to gastrointestinal death.
>Doses in the 10000-100000 Rem range would kill within 2 days, due to central
>nervous system death. Doses exceeding 100000 Rem would bring instant molecular
>death.
> Just though you'd like to know.
This is terribly incorrect information. Almost immediate incapacitation due to
electrolyte imbalance followed in a short period of time by death
starts in the 2000-5000 REM range. Above 5,000 REM, dysfunction is
immediate because of disruption of the nervous system due to the ionization
energy deposited. time to death is measured in minutes. Dysfunction is
generally characterized total loss of control of bodily function - messy.
Here is some data from a table in "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons", USGPO
[set tabstop=4 if this is distorted]
Definitions:
Initial phase (IP) - Initial effects such as nausea.
Latent phase (LP) - time where outward symptoms are in remission
Final phase (FP) - Recurrance of symptoms. Consumated when victim
either recovers or dies.
0-100 REM 100-200 200-600 600-1000 1000-5000 >5000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IP onset - 3-6 hrs 1/2-6 hrs 1/4-1/2 5-30 mins. immed **
duration - <=1 day 1-2 days <2 days <1 day immed **
effect - 1 2 2 3 4
LP onset - <=1 day 1-2 days <2 days << 1 day immed **
duration - <=2 wks 1-4 wks 5-10 days 0-7 days immed **
FP onset - 10-14 da 1-4 wks 1-4 wks 0-10 days immed **
duration - 4 weeks 1-8 wks 1-4 wks 2-10 days immed **
Therapy - 1 2 3 4 5
Prognosis - 1 2 2 3 3
Death - - 2-12 wks 1-6 wks 2-14 day <1 day
** Initial phase merges into final phase, death usually occuring from a few
hours to about 2 days. There may be a very short latent phase in
some cases.
effects:
1. Moderate Leukopenia
2. Severe Leukopenia, purpura, hemmorage, infection, Epilation
above 300 REM.
3. Diarrhea, fever, electrolyte disturbance
4. Convulsion, tremor, ataxia, lethargy
Therapy:
1. Reassurance, hemotologic surveillance
2. Blood transfusion, antibiotics,
3. consider bone marrow transplant.
4. maintenance of electrolyte levels, victim comfort.
5. Seditation.
Prognosis
1. Excellent
2. Guarded
3. Hopeless
------------------
It should be noted that in doses >> 1000 REM, a) experience is of
necessity limited and b) effects are variable because source vs
body orientation greatly affects where the dose is absorbed.
At dose rates above about 500 REM/second, physical sensation is felt,
probably due to direct stimulation of neurons by deposited energy.
It feels like numerous pinpricks as my fingertips can attest.
An interesting fact is the effects of the Hiroshima blast have been
so carefully modeled that an anomoly in radiation effects in certain
areas of the city were accounted for with great accuracy by taking
into account the shielding provided by the lifting eye on the end of
the weapon casing.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC | What's the difference between Jane Fonda
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | and Bill Clinton? Hanoi Jane went to
Marietta, Ga | Viet Nam.
j...@dixie.com | Need public access in Atl? Write me.
Matthew J. Bernhardt
>In article <1992Apr20....@acsu.buffalo.edu> m...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt) writes:
>> All of these numbers were arrived at experimentally, except for man.
> Ah, beg to differ. There are data from populations of humans exposed
>to radiation which were used to get the figures for humans, like those
>people who were in Nagasaki and Hiroshima at the end of the Pacific Ocean
>phase of WW II, enlisted person who took part in tests in the 50s and
>people exposed to fallout in the Pacific.
Of course there are data, mentioned above, for example (this is how
that range was estimated), but these numbers we not obtained in a true
experimental fashion i.e. take a bunch of humans, zap them with a precise
level of radiation and see how many die. About the only people whose ethics
would allow this would be the Nazis and others of their ilk. Did they do
experiments like this? :-(
>>Apparently, that range is an estimate, as precise experimental data are not
>>available for some strange reason. :-)
> Unfortunately, not true. Accidents happen.
True again. But not in a precise experimental (laboratory) setting,
with large numbers of subjects, and precisely controlled variables.
>> While shrimp are not given in this table, the high resistance of
>>goldfish to radiation lends credence to the idea that shrimp might be more
>>resistant.
> Um, shrimp and goldfish are about as different as shrimp and
>humans.
Maybe so, maybe no. The point is that shrimp and goldfish, being
(I hate this term) "lower" animals, have less specialized systems that might
be more resistant to radiation. It turns out that radiation damage at the
tissue level is about that same in all organisms, for a given dosage of
radiation. Sensitivity to radiation turns out to be more a function of how
well an organism can cope with said radiation damage.
>> Oh, on another note, I have another table on acute radiation syndromes,
>>but unfortunately, it is in units of Roentgens as well. But let's assume
>>a Rem and a Roentgen are approximately equivalent. In this case, an acute
>>dose of 1000 Rem would only kill in 4-7 days, due to gastrointestinal death.
>>Doses in the 10000-100000 Rem range would kill within 2 days, due to central
>>nervous system death. Doses exceeding 100000 Rem would bring instant molecular
>>death.
>> Just though you'd like to know.
> You get some odd exception to the above. There was a worker who
>got some absurd dose of radiation (I think he had reactor waste spilled on him
>or something) who got real sick, but got better instead of dying. Be neat
>to know how he did that.
Shit happens. ;-)
*******************************************************************************
* Matt Bernhardt * *
* Mad Scientist * SAVE THE HUMANS *
* University of Buffalo * *
* m...@acsu.buffalo.edu * *
*******************************************************************************
Matthew J. Bernhardt
>m...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt) writes:
>> All of these numbers were arrived at experimentally, except for man.
>>Apparently, that range is an estimate, as precise experimental data are not
>>available for some strange reason. :-)
>Actually the LD50 dose for man is experimentally determined.
>The subjects were the japanese under the atomic bomb
>detonations, various victims of acute radiation exposure in
>weapons research, medical accidents and isotope accidents. While
>experiments were obviously not set up in advance, radiation
>transport modeling is sufficiently refined that reconstruction
>of the events can be done to a great deal of accuracy. LD50 for
>man is generally now considered to be in the 500 REM range.
As I mentioned in an earlier reply, I was using "experimental" in
the strictest sense of the word. (I was also paraphrasing the book I have.)
If you wish to extend the use of "experimental", then point conceded.
>> Oh, on another note, I have another table on acute radiation syndromes,
>>but unfortunately, it is in units of Roentgens as well. But let's assume
^^^^^^^^^
>>a Rem and a Roentgen are approximately equivalent. In this case, an acute
>>dose of 1000 Rem would only kill in 4-7 days, due to gastrointestinal death.
>>Doses in the 10000-100000 Rem range would kill within 2 days, due to central
>>nervous system death. Doses exceeding 100000 Rem would bring instant molecular
>>death.
>> Just though you'd like to know.
>This is terribly incorrect information. Almost immediate incapacitation due to
>electrolyte imbalance followed in a short period of time by death
>starts in the 2000-5000 REM range. Above 5,000 REM, dysfunction is
>immediate because of disruption of the nervous system due to the ionization
>energy deposited. time to death is measured in minutes. Dysfunction is
>generally characterized total loss of control of bodily function - messy.
Yep, we have the REM - Roentgen controversy here. My table was in
Roentgens, and just for the sake of argument, I was assuming that they were
roughly equivalent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
REM = Roentgen x Quality Factor.
Soooo, I was assuming a QF of 1. All bets are off if this is not
true, as may be the case with your info, since you are reporting in REMs.
>------------------
I have a table like this too. Thanks for sparing me the trouble
of typing it.
*******************************************************************************
Les Degroff
|> In article <1992Apr18.1...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> to...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Todd Pedlar) writes:
|> >
|> >>4. She claims there is a type of shrimp which naturally collects
|> >>polonium-210, and receives an annual dose of 100 rems. She specifically
|> >>mentions this is rems, not millirems. Is that true? It seems like
|> >>a lot to me.
|> >
|> >I'm not sure on this one, either. If you were to reveive 100 rems right now,
|> >
like cockroaches may survive 10 X dose fatal to mammals and birds. Going
even smaller, there are microorganisms that can live in experimental
reactor cores under very very large biologic irradiance, I have not seen
anything specific but I think there was theory that they had evolved/enhanced
their DNA repair mechanisms to some degree and had very high genetic
redundancy for the few hundred "essential" proteins.
Jim Carr
>jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>
>>> All of these numbers were arrived at experimentally, except for man.
>
>> Ah, beg to differ. There are data from populations of humans exposed
>>to radiation which were used to get the figures for humans, like those
>>people who were in Nagasaki and Hiroshima at the end of the Pacific Ocean
>>phase of WW II, enlisted person who took part in tests in the 50s and
>>people exposed to fallout in the Pacific.
>
>that range was estimated), but these numbers we not obtained in a true
>experimental fashion i.e. take a bunch of humans, zap them with a precise
>level of radiation and see how many die. About the only people whose ethics
>would allow this would be the Nazis and others of their ilk. Did they do
>experiments like this? :-(
The data from Hiroshima satisfy your description. We took a bunch of humans,
zapped them with a single source of radiation that was calibrated and, in
fact, recalibrated, after the fact based on knowledge of the weapon and
measurements in the field. Doses from radiation can be calculated with
some precision these days, and in some of the cases mentioned the persons
in the 'experiment' wore dosimeters.
For example, one little known experiment involved a wing of fighter pilots
led by my uncle. They flew through the cloud from the "Mike" test of the
first thermonuclear device to collect data on the reaction products. He
was told that he got about 100 rem; he recalls that others got similar or
lower doses depending on their specific mission. He is the only one who
has survived more than 5 years -- most of the rest dying of various cancers.
The Air Force did careful medical followups on him and the daughter he had
a decade later. He does not know what was done with these data, however.
You can read about this mission in the declassified reports from project
Greenhouse, but the dose numbers in that document differ by a factor of
about 10 from what he was told at the time.
I do not think the Army did as careful a follow-up on the tests it did.
There are some interesting pictures of a Chinese cavalry unit, horses
wearing respirators, that rode through a test explosion. They may have
collected similar data as well. (Think the photo is in "Effects" book?)
>>>Apparently, that range is an estimate, as precise experimental data are not
>>>available for some strange reason. :-)
>
>> Unfortunately, not true. Accidents happen.
>
> True again. But not in a precise experimental (laboratory) setting,
>with large numbers of subjects, and precisely controlled variables.
There are means to control such "experiments". What you do is take your
exposed population and create a control group that is matched to the
first group in the other variables that one thinks might matter. If
there is a large signal, and at 100's of rem there is a signal, this
method works quite well. It can be argued that such methods are as
good as any other experiment where one chooses a way to maintain a
control group, provided sufficient care is taken. When the signal
gets small, as in ELF EMF studies, systematic errors take over of
course -- just as they do in any other experiment.
--
J. A. Carr | "The New Frontier of which I
j...@gw.scri.fsu.edu | speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University B-186 | -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute | John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Frank Manning
>...I think the following is a much better Asimov quote:
>
>The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
>discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
> -- Isaac Asimov
<1992Apr21.0...@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca
(James Davis Nicoll):
<discussion of radiation exposures>
>There was a worker who got some absurd dose of radiation (I think he had
>reactor waste spilled on him or something) who got real sick, but got
>better instead of dying...
That's funny ...
-- Frank Manning
-- fr...@evax2.arizona.edu
Sean Casey
I'm curious as to why radiation causes some of the effects it does.
Why it's painless. Why one's hair falls out--but regrows later if he
survives. I'd like to know how the chromosomes may be affected such
that the cell reproduces, but is more susceptible to errors that can
cause a cancerous cell.
I assume a lot of it has to do with it "killing off" certain kinds of
cells and cell structures more quickly, those more vulnerable to
certain kinds of disruption. Does "effects" discuss the biological
effects at this level? Do you know a book that does?
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
se...@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
Richard Bell
>In article <1992Apr20....@acsu.buffalo.edu> m...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt) writes:
>
>>Apparently, that range is an estimate, as precise experimental data are not
>>available for some strange reason. :-)
>
> Unfortunately, not true. Accidents happen.
>
meticulously aware of what was happenning, and what dose would result, the
accident would not happen.
[doses and descriptions for horrible radiation induced quick deaths deleted]
>
> You get some odd exception to the above. There was a worker who
>got some absurd dose of radiation (I think he had reactor waste spilled on him
>or something) who got real sick, but got better instead of dying. Be neat
>to know how he did that.
>
If I remember correctly, it was a latin american scrap merchant who dismantled
a cancer treatment machine loaded with cobalt 60. The dose was about 1500 rems
and he exhibited a full recovery. For this, he earned the nickname "Superman".
Apparently cancer machines and other useful radioactive tools are a problem
when they are diposed improperly.
HENRY JASON NORRIS
>>but unfortunately, it is in units of Roentgens as well. But let's assume
>>a Rem and a Roentgen are approximately equivalent. In this case, an acute
>>dose of 1000 Rem would only kill in 4-7 days, due to gastrointestinal death.
>>Doses in the 10000-100000 Rem range would kill within 2 days, due to central
>>nervous system death. Doses exceeding 100000 Rem would bring instant
molecular
>>death.
>> Just though you'd like to know.
> You get some odd exception to the above. There was a worker who
>got some absurd dose of radiation (I think he had reactor waste spilled on him
>or something) who got real sick, but got better instead of dying. Be neat
>to know how he did that.
>
> James Nicoll
It would be interesting to find out if that is rumor, or is actually factual.
In the stories I have heard, the dosed guy invariably dies. Some of the
accidents
have been reported.
The following is probably of interest to all those who are concerned about the
radiation being released from nuclear power facilities:
"...the comparison of cancer rates both before and after nuclear
facilities began operation was especially informative. Overall, the relative
risks of leukemia and other cancers appeared to be slightly higher
before reactor
startup than after, providing no evidence that environmental pollution
attributable to the facilities might be causing a substantial increase
in cancer
risk in the study counties.
The Committee concludes that the survey has produced no evidence that
an
excess occurrence of cancer has resulted from living near nuclear
facilities.
Further, measurements of radioactive releases from nuclear facilities
indicate
that the dose from routine operations is generally much below natural
background
radiation, and hence may be unlikely to produce observable effects on
the health
of the surrounding populations."
'Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities'
(Abstract)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Public Health Services
National Institute of Health Publication Number 90-874
July 1990
Just thought everyone should know...
Henry Norris NCSU Nuclear Engineering
John De Armond
>If I remember correctly, it was a latin american scrap merchant who dismantled
>a cancer treatment machine loaded with cobalt 60. The dose was about 1500 rems
>and he exhibited a full recovery. For this, he earned the nickname "Superman".
>Apparently cancer machines and other useful radioactive tools are a problem
>when they are diposed improperly.
There have been several of these both in the US and foreign. I went out
with an HP team while at TMI to a nearby steel mill where a slab was hot
enough with Co-60 to interfer with a gamma thickness gauge. That was one
bloody mess.
Regarding "superman". The doses we've been talking about are ACUTE
doses. The same dose delivered over time will not have the same
effect. While the definition of "acute" is fuzzy, I'd consider acute
radiation to be delivered within 24 hours. BTW, superman was burned
fairly badly and many of his family died. The Co-60 was still hot
enough that his kids were fascinated by the "glowing sand" (Cerencov (sp)
glow) and rubbed it over their bodies.
Simon
In a sense, controlled studies of the effects of radiation on humans have been done
since radiation treatments are used medically to effect cures for various diseases.
For instance, my sister had luekemia. To effect a cure she received 1000 rad over
a two day period whole body. The objective was to kill all the bone marrow without
killing her. (Radiation kills rapidly dividing cells) This was then followed by a
bone marrow transplant. Without the bone marrow transplant, 1000 rad would likely
be lethal to most people, as reported by earlier correspondents. However, death
would likely come from infection due to a nonfunctioning immune system, not directly
from the radiation itself. Incidentally, my sister's transplant was in 1982 and
she is alive and healthy today.
Tino
>Regarding "superman". The doses we've been talking about are ACUTE
>doses. The same dose delivered over time will not have the same
>effect. While the definition of "acute" is fuzzy, I'd consider acute
>radiation to be delivered within 24 hours. BTW, superman was burned
>fairly badly and many of his family died. The Co-60 was still hot
>enough that his kids were fascinated by the "glowing sand" (Cerencov (sp)
>glow) and rubbed it over their bodies.
Small point, but Cherenkov (sp?) radiation is seen when the source is submerged
in water and the electrons are exceeding the speed of light in the medium (water),
and emit a photon, which you see.
The glowing of a Co-60 source is from the intense x-rays, I believe.
Tino
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The nuclear scientist will prepare the bed on which mankind must lie; and
if mankind doesn't fit - well, that will be just too bad for mankind."
- Aldous Huxley
Jim Carr
>
>>Apparently cancer machines and other useful radioactive tools are a problem
>>when they are diposed improperly.
>
>There have been several of these both in the US and foreign. I went out
>with an HP team while at TMI to a nearby steel mill where a slab was hot
>enough with Co-60 to interfer with a gamma thickness gauge. That was one
>bloody mess.
Always (?) steel: apparently the machines get passed off as scrap by some
disreputable person along the line. The one I recall was first detected
when a truck carrying office furniture somehow (how boggles the mind when
you know how out-of-the-way this spot is) made a wrong turn and went over
the automatic radiation detection system at one site in Los Alamos (I think
it was LAMPF) and they used the photo of the side of the truck (he ignored
all the lights and sirens) to track him down. The furniture incorporated
steel made from scrap containing Co-60 from a therapy machine.
Daniel Macdougall
library or bookstore. As to my hair falls out, this is because the cells that
grow the hair grow much faster than all the other cells in you body, is for a
reason that I'm not sure about, the rays kill off the fast growing cells much
faster than the slow ones. And the chromosomes are damages because they're
very fragle, and any little josle throws then out of wack. Anything else you'd
like to know about?
//////////
Daniel MacDougall ! O O !
Berkeley, Ca, USA. ! ^ ! danmacd@
Amiga, biking, tennis, ! : : ! terapin.com
jazz, francais physics. ! ---- !
/////////