[HN Gopher] Silicon Valley (and Montana) radiation levels
___________________________________________________________________
Silicon Valley (and Montana) radiation levels
Author : xf--
Score : 24 points
Date : 2022-01-01 19:13 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lcamtuf.coredump.cx)
(TXT) w3m dump (lcamtuf.coredump.cx)
| blakesterz wrote:
| Interesting FAQ thing there too.
|
| Q: Wait a moment... why are Montana readings quite a bit higher
| than in California?
|
| A: SF Bay Area is a coastal region, while the other location is
| up in the mountains - which means that there is less atmosphere
| to stop cosmic rays. The difference in measurements is quite
| substantial, around 40%. If that freaks you out, consider that a
| commercial flight easily exposes you to about 300 uR/h!
| helge9210 wrote:
| In 1993 (seven years after Chernobyl; central Ukraine) we as
| teenagers were playing with a sensor.
|
| Holding it on unwashed palm was registering 40 microR/h. Washing
| was losing the readings down to 20 microR/h.
| pcmaffey wrote:
| I live in Montana. After a wildfire burned part of our house last
| year, my wife and I were living in our basement during
| renovations. It was terrible for some unknown reason...
| headaches, sharp dry skin. Couldn't sleep. We had had a radon
| system installed the year previous, so we ruled that out for a
| while. Until, we finally re-tested and saw it was at 27 pCi/l.
| Apparently the installer had inadvertently added a p-trap to the
| outake and so nothing was exhausting. Anyways we got that fixed
| and now we feel fine down there.
|
| My point being that radiation can be felt. I'd describe it as a
| high-pitched sound ringing beneath your skin...
| rikeanimer wrote:
| ncmncm wrote:
| With bonus link to author's home decor recommendation, toward the
| bottom. Such clarity! Such brevity!
|
| Aw hell, here it is here: https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/geiger/
| rikeanimer wrote:
| Yeah. Super sweet when he explains that ordering the atmega is
| best done over cash or bitcoin for "opsec" reasons.
| dekhn wrote:
| you don't know you lcamtuf is, do you? I understand you're
| all worked up by his apparent misuse of radioactivity-
| detecting instruments, but... he's a bit smarter than most
| humans, I tend to give him some credit.
|
| I suggest starting here, https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/
| personally I'm a big fan because of the Guerilla Guide to
| CNC, he has clearly researched his stuff.
| rikeanimer wrote:
| No, I didn't till your post. Just read a bit about him.
| Meh. He seems un-stupid and to have started out with things
| a bit later than me. I don't really evaluate peoples social
| standing. Bad measures are bad measures. @dekhn I might
| note that you don't really know who I am. Nobody does.
|
| I wouldn't call my statements "worked up by his apparent
| misuse of radioactivity-detecting instruments"
|
| I would call them reasonable statements of someone who gets
| pissed off by FUD. Can you [or HE] explain to me how this
| is not FUD?
| dekhn wrote:
| I'm not sure what you think is FUD in the post. All the
| statements about radiation and health are approximately
| correct. They don't attempt to spread fear, uncertainty,
| and doubt- quite the opposite, they attempt to avoid
| doing so.
|
| Could you be clearer about what you think the actual
| problem is? Is it just that his readings are in the noise
| of the sensor? Or his health claims? Something else?
| rikeanimer wrote:
| Of course:
|
| The problem is that the data is presented to the observer
| as something that is within the measurement spectrum. It
| is not. The graphs show simply noise within the expected
| spectrum of noise for _both_ the Montana and San
| Francisco data.
|
| Next there is some statement about increased cancer risk
| which doesn't really reference anything at all but on
| first blush seems intended to reference then difference
| between the montana/SF data.
|
| The data between _both_ of those graphs if within the
| noise and we have little information on under what
| circumstances it was taken [and this is in _addition_ to
| the fact that it is just noise!]
|
| The authors first statement that "it probably means
| nothing" does nothing to excuse the fact that most
| viewers will likely view it as _as something_ especially
| given the comments that follow.
|
| FUD.
| rikeanimer wrote:
| Yeah. Here is the manual.
| https://manualzz.com/doc/7054597/nukalerter-manual
|
| From the manual:
|
| Gamma Sensitivity: 18 counts/sec @ 1mR/hr (10mSv/hr) Accuracy
| (Cs137): +- 20% background through 600R/hr Saturation: No
| saturation below 1000R/hr Background: <10 counts/minute
| (Shielded)
|
| Downvote me all you want this isn't useful unless shit gets
| _real_.
|
| Here is an interesting paper on gamma-ray monitoring:
|
| https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1356898
|
| Here is [ostensibly]: some specs on the 7121 dectetor the
| "Nukalert" shitty USB product is based on:
| https://www.lndinc.com/products/geiger-mueller-tubes/712-2/
| rikeanimer wrote:
| In fact, this question on the website makes no sense at all.
| The montana as well as the SF readings are within the noise of
| the sensor. ugh. sigh. FUD.
|
| "Q: Wait a moment... why are Montana readings quite a bit
| higher than in California? A: SF Bay Area is a coastal region,
| while the other location is up in the mountains - which means
| that there is less atmosphere to stop cosmic rays. The
| difference in measurements is quite substantial, around 40%. If
| that freaks you out, consider that a commercial flight easily
| exposes you to about 300 uR/h!"
| xf-- wrote:
| Instrument noise, background radiation, and measurement
| accuracy are three different completely different things.
| rikeanimer wrote:
| yes they are. can you explain what your graphs are showing
| then, please?
|
| I think they are showing nothing but noise.
| lstodd wrote:
| Ugh So many this.
|
| Looks like most news are just thermal noise from the wires
| leading to the (apparently missing) sensors that is then ran
| through the google translate or somthing.
|
| +/- a couple hundred or uRh? Pfew. You can have like 1-2Rh
| and never even notice it.
| pugworthy wrote:
| Nice to see it's fairly level - not great, not terrible.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-01 23:02 UTC)