Jack, I share your fascination with these details, and I admire your ability to do the research and distill the most important facts from flood of information on these accidents. I've added a cite to this article in Figure 6 of Citizendium's article on Fear of Radiation. https://citizendium.org/wiki/Fear_of_radiation. Hopefully, this will get more public attention than substack. I would love to see a whole article in CZ, but I have to resist the temptation of becoming just another voluminous source that the public never reads.
I will let you know if we get a response from the anti-nukers. Then we can expand on the topic with a new section "One Zoomie can Kill You" on our Debate Guide page. We still haven't finished the debate on LNT from that page. I've requested responses from the Health Physics Society and X-LNT dot org.
Jack, have you considering trying to get your work on the sigmoidal risk curve published in the radiation safety literature? If the peer-review process in (say) Health Physics is reasonably unbiased, it would be a major contribution to the field. I suggest the medical literature because people working in radiation treatments should have a vested interest in reducing the fear associated with their procedures and less of an interest in protecting the status quo.
I have a very bad history with journal editors and reviewers. They insist on turning my English into something that sounds like it was written by chatbot. Health Physics has shown interest in an article on SNT, but we need an amanuensis who is willing to put up with this nonsense.
I'm trying to understand the connection between Bequerels and Sieverts. Is there a good source on this? I can get from Bequerels to watts (given the energy of the decay products) and from there to Joules / cm2 (given time and distance). At this point, it gets murky, depending on how much energy is absorbed per cm of penetration. On your coefficient for Sv / Bq don't you mean Sv / Bq-h ? Bq is a rate. Sv is at total over time.
It's a good question and one that I have pondered. The Sv/Bq is direct from the ICRP doc., Pub 119 which you can pull off the web. The only way I can make sense of it, is the ICRP means the amount of the isotope that when consumed/inhaled was putting out this many Bq. Once you make that interpretation, it is easy to convert these "Bq" to grams of material via the isotope's specific activity. I can send you the Python code if you want.
The Sv/Bq "dose coefficient" already does all the ICRP guestimates for converting
this many grams of inhaled/ingested material to "total committed effect inSv" for the ICRP's standard model of a human. It involves guesses at the dose to various organs, and then weighting each of the organ doses to come with this metric. Basically a series ok kluges.
Jack, I share your fascination with these details, and I admire your ability to do the research and distill the most important facts from flood of information on these accidents. I've added a cite to this article in Figure 6 of Citizendium's article on Fear of Radiation. https://citizendium.org/wiki/Fear_of_radiation. Hopefully, this will get more public attention than substack. I would love to see a whole article in CZ, but I have to resist the temptation of becoming just another voluminous source that the public never reads.
I will let you know if we get a response from the anti-nukers. Then we can expand on the topic with a new section "One Zoomie can Kill You" on our Debate Guide page. We still haven't finished the debate on LNT from that page. I've requested responses from the Health Physics Society and X-LNT dot org.
Jack, have you considering trying to get your work on the sigmoidal risk curve published in the radiation safety literature? If the peer-review process in (say) Health Physics is reasonably unbiased, it would be a major contribution to the field. I suggest the medical literature because people working in radiation treatments should have a vested interest in reducing the fear associated with their procedures and less of an interest in protecting the status quo.
Dio,
I have a very bad history with journal editors and reviewers. They insist on turning my English into something that sounds like it was written by chatbot. Health Physics has shown interest in an article on SNT, but we need an amanuensis who is willing to put up with this nonsense.
I'm trying to understand the connection between Bequerels and Sieverts. Is there a good source on this? I can get from Bequerels to watts (given the energy of the decay products) and from there to Joules / cm2 (given time and distance). At this point, it gets murky, depending on how much energy is absorbed per cm of penetration. On your coefficient for Sv / Bq don't you mean Sv / Bq-h ? Bq is a rate. Sv is at total over time.
David,
It's a good question and one that I have pondered. The Sv/Bq is direct from the ICRP doc., Pub 119 which you can pull off the web. The only way I can make sense of it, is the ICRP means the amount of the isotope that when consumed/inhaled was putting out this many Bq. Once you make that interpretation, it is easy to convert these "Bq" to grams of material via the isotope's specific activity. I can send you the Python code if you want.
The Sv/Bq "dose coefficient" already does all the ICRP guestimates for converting
this many grams of inhaled/ingested material to "total committed effect inSv" for the ICRP's standard model of a human. It involves guesses at the dose to various organs, and then weighting each of the organ doses to come with this metric. Basically a series ok kluges.