a.As the star gets bigger, the force of gravity also gets bigger, while the radiation pressure stays the same.
b.The star fuses more hydrogen as it gets near the end of its life, then the fusion of hydrogen is converted to gravity.
c.Near the end of its life, a star runs out of hydrogen to fuse, and fusion is what creates the radiation pressure.
d.Gravity increases with time, so the older a star gets, the more it is affected by the force of gravity.How does the inward force of gravity overcome the outward force of radiation pressure during the end of a star?
As discussed in my answer at:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>
the answer is c).
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
What's the difference between radiation therapist and radiologic technologist?
My major is radiation therapist(I know about this), but my major is impacted. I was looking at other colleges and one have radiologic technologist. I was wondering what is the difference between those two. And if it's similar why does a radiologic technologist gets paid less than the radiation therapist.
** I live in CA, i dont know if that helpsWhat's the difference between radiation therapist and radiologic technologist?
Radiologic technologists do x-ray, CT, MRI, etc. Radiation therapists treat cancer patients. Why do we make so much less? I'd like to know the answer to that one too.
** I live in CA, i dont know if that helpsWhat's the difference between radiation therapist and radiologic technologist?
Radiologic technologists do x-ray, CT, MRI, etc. Radiation therapists treat cancer patients. Why do we make so much less? I'd like to know the answer to that one too.
What wavelength of radiation must be used to eject electrons with a velocity of 1.3 103 km路s-1?
The work function for chromium metal is 4.37 eV. What wavelength of radiation must be used to eject electrons with a velocity of 1.3 103 km路s-1?What wavelength of radiation must be used to eject electrons with a velocity of 1.3 103 km路s-1?
this is photoelectric effect
h蠀=w+k
k kinetic energy
w work function
h蠀 photon energy
h planck's constant
蠀 frequency
v speed of eject electron 1.3103 x 10鲁 m/s
m electron mass
k=陆m.v虏
h蠀=w+陆m.v虏
h蠀=E photon energy
E/h=蠀
c speed of the light
c/蠀=位 -%26gt;wave length of radiation
this is photoelectric effect
h蠀=w+k
k kinetic energy
w work function
h蠀 photon energy
h planck's constant
蠀 frequency
v speed of eject electron 1.3103 x 10鲁 m/s
m electron mass
k=陆m.v虏
h蠀=w+陆m.v虏
h蠀=E photon energy
E/h=蠀
c speed of the light
c/蠀=位 -%26gt;wave length of radiation
What is cosmic radiation and the scattering experiment?
GCSE. Please make the answer idiot proof! I think it's something like background radiation, is that right?What is cosmic radiation and the scattering experiment?
'In cosmology, the cosmic microwave background radiation CMB (also CMBR, CBR, MBR, and relic radiation) is a form of electromagnetic radiation filling the universe. With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is pitch black. But with a radio telescope, there is a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum, hence the name cosmic microwave background radiation. The CMB's discovery in 1964 by astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned them the 1978 Nobel Prize.
The CMBR is well explained by the Big Bang theory 鈥?when the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was smaller, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from its red-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, stable atoms could form. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. The photons that were around at that time have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the exact same photons fill a larger and larger universe. This is the source for the term relic radiation, another name for the CMBR.
Precise measurements of cosmic background radiation are critical to cosmology, since any proposed model of the universe must explain this radiation. The CMBR has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.725 K, thus the spectrum peaks in the microwave range frequency of 160.2 GHz, corresponding to a 1.9 mm wavelength. The glow is almost but not quite uniform in all directions, and shows a very specific pattern equal to that expected if the inherent randomness of a red-hot gas is blown up to the size of the universe. In particular, the spatial power spectrum (how much difference is observed versus how far apart the regions are on the sky) contains small anisotropies, or irregularities, which vary with the size of the region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match to within experimental error what would be expected if small thermal fluctuations had expanded to the size of the observable space we can detect today.
Although many different processes might produce the general form of a black body spectrum, no model other than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result, most cosmologists consider the Big Bang theory of the universe to be the best explanation for the CMBR. ...'
'.... Measurements of the CMB have made the inflationary Big Bang theory the standard model of the earliest eras of the universe.This theory predicts that the initial conditions for the universe are originally random in nature, and follow a roughly Gaussian distribution. The power spectrum of these fluctuations has been calculated, and agrees startlingly well with the observations, although certain observables, for example the overall amplitude of the fluctuations, are more or less free parameters of the cosmic inflation model. ...'
'... The CMB gives a snapshot of the Universe when, according to standard cosmology, the temperature dropped enough to allow electrons and protons to form hydrogen atoms, thus making the universe transparent to radiation. When it originated some 400,000 years after the Big Bang 鈥?this time period is generally known as the "time of last scattering" or the period of recombination or decoupling 鈥?the temperature of the Universe was about 3,000 K. This corresponds to an energy of about 0.25 eV, which is much less than the 13.6 eV ionization energy of hydrogen. Since then, the temperature of the radiation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1100 due to the expansion of the Universe. As the universe expands, the CMB photons are redshifted, making the radiation's temperature inversely proportional to the Universe's scale length. ...'
'... The anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background is divided into two sorts: primary anisotropy 鈥?which is due to effects which occur at the last scattering surface and before 鈥?and secondary anisotropy 鈥?which is due to effects, such as interactions with hot gas or gravitational potentials, between the last scattering surface and the observer. ...'
'... Subsequent to the discovery of the CMB, hundreds of cosmic microwave background experiments have been conducted to measure and characterize the signatures of the radiation. The most famous experiment is probably the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite that orbited in 1989鈥?996 and which detected and quantified the large scale anisotropies at the limit of its detection capabilities. Inspired by the initial COBE results of an extremely isotropic and homogeneous background, a series of ground- and balloon-based experiments quantified CMB anisotropies on smaller angular scales over the next decade. ... In June 2001, NASA launched a second CMB space mission, WMAP, to make much more precise measurements of the large scale anisotropies over the full sky. The first results from this mission, disclosed in 2003, were detailed measurements of the angular power spectrum to below degree scales, tightly constraining various cosmological parameters. The results are broadly consistent with those expected from cosmic inflation as well as various other competing theories, and are available in detail at NASA's data center for Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) (see links below). Although WMAP provided very accurate measurements of the large angular-scale fluctuations in the CMB (structures about as large in the sky as the moon), it did not have the angular resolution to measure the smaller scale fluctuations which had been observed using previous ground-based interferometers. ...(Wikipedia)'.
'In cosmology, the cosmic microwave background radiation CMB (also CMBR, CBR, MBR, and relic radiation) is a form of electromagnetic radiation filling the universe. With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is pitch black. But with a radio telescope, there is a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum, hence the name cosmic microwave background radiation. The CMB's discovery in 1964 by astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned them the 1978 Nobel Prize.
The CMBR is well explained by the Big Bang theory 鈥?when the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was smaller, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from its red-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, stable atoms could form. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. The photons that were around at that time have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the exact same photons fill a larger and larger universe. This is the source for the term relic radiation, another name for the CMBR.
Precise measurements of cosmic background radiation are critical to cosmology, since any proposed model of the universe must explain this radiation. The CMBR has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.725 K, thus the spectrum peaks in the microwave range frequency of 160.2 GHz, corresponding to a 1.9 mm wavelength. The glow is almost but not quite uniform in all directions, and shows a very specific pattern equal to that expected if the inherent randomness of a red-hot gas is blown up to the size of the universe. In particular, the spatial power spectrum (how much difference is observed versus how far apart the regions are on the sky) contains small anisotropies, or irregularities, which vary with the size of the region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match to within experimental error what would be expected if small thermal fluctuations had expanded to the size of the observable space we can detect today.
Although many different processes might produce the general form of a black body spectrum, no model other than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result, most cosmologists consider the Big Bang theory of the universe to be the best explanation for the CMBR. ...'
'.... Measurements of the CMB have made the inflationary Big Bang theory the standard model of the earliest eras of the universe.This theory predicts that the initial conditions for the universe are originally random in nature, and follow a roughly Gaussian distribution. The power spectrum of these fluctuations has been calculated, and agrees startlingly well with the observations, although certain observables, for example the overall amplitude of the fluctuations, are more or less free parameters of the cosmic inflation model. ...'
'... The CMB gives a snapshot of the Universe when, according to standard cosmology, the temperature dropped enough to allow electrons and protons to form hydrogen atoms, thus making the universe transparent to radiation. When it originated some 400,000 years after the Big Bang 鈥?this time period is generally known as the "time of last scattering" or the period of recombination or decoupling 鈥?the temperature of the Universe was about 3,000 K. This corresponds to an energy of about 0.25 eV, which is much less than the 13.6 eV ionization energy of hydrogen. Since then, the temperature of the radiation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1100 due to the expansion of the Universe. As the universe expands, the CMB photons are redshifted, making the radiation's temperature inversely proportional to the Universe's scale length. ...'
'... The anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background is divided into two sorts: primary anisotropy 鈥?which is due to effects which occur at the last scattering surface and before 鈥?and secondary anisotropy 鈥?which is due to effects, such as interactions with hot gas or gravitational potentials, between the last scattering surface and the observer. ...'
'... Subsequent to the discovery of the CMB, hundreds of cosmic microwave background experiments have been conducted to measure and characterize the signatures of the radiation. The most famous experiment is probably the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite that orbited in 1989鈥?996 and which detected and quantified the large scale anisotropies at the limit of its detection capabilities. Inspired by the initial COBE results of an extremely isotropic and homogeneous background, a series of ground- and balloon-based experiments quantified CMB anisotropies on smaller angular scales over the next decade. ... In June 2001, NASA launched a second CMB space mission, WMAP, to make much more precise measurements of the large scale anisotropies over the full sky. The first results from this mission, disclosed in 2003, were detailed measurements of the angular power spectrum to below degree scales, tightly constraining various cosmological parameters. The results are broadly consistent with those expected from cosmic inflation as well as various other competing theories, and are available in detail at NASA's data center for Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) (see links below). Although WMAP provided very accurate measurements of the large angular-scale fluctuations in the CMB (structures about as large in the sky as the moon), it did not have the angular resolution to measure the smaller scale fluctuations which had been observed using previous ground-based interferometers. ...(Wikipedia)'.
What is the shortest wavelength present in the radiation from an x-ray machine?
What is the shortest wavelength present in the radiation from an x-ray machine whose operating potential difference is 50,000 V?
I've had the numbers and equations explained but it is totally over my head.What is the shortest wavelength present in the radiation from an x-ray machine?
The speed of the electron striking the anode is a function of tube voltage. As the voltage (V) varies, so will the energy of the electron as it strikes the anode. This contributes to the ‘white’ or continuous spectrum of X-ray wavelengths emitted from an X-ray tube. The shortest wavelength emitted is a function of the maximum voltage applied to the tube, and is given by the Duane-Hunt Law which states that “the wavelength of greatest intensity is approximately twice that of the shortest wavelength (SWL) emitted”. The minimum wavelength generated is given by the equation below:
SWL = 1243/Vtube (SWL in nanometers)
Gives at 50'000V a Shortest Wavelength of 0.02486nmflight simulator games fashion week 2011
I've had the numbers and equations explained but it is totally over my head.What is the shortest wavelength present in the radiation from an x-ray machine?
The speed of the electron striking the anode is a function of tube voltage. As the voltage (V) varies, so will the energy of the electron as it strikes the anode. This contributes to the ‘white’ or continuous spectrum of X-ray wavelengths emitted from an X-ray tube. The shortest wavelength emitted is a function of the maximum voltage applied to the tube, and is given by the Duane-Hunt Law which states that “the wavelength of greatest intensity is approximately twice that of the shortest wavelength (SWL) emitted”. The minimum wavelength generated is given by the equation below:
SWL = 1243/Vtube (SWL in nanometers)
Gives at 50'000V a Shortest Wavelength of 0.02486nm
How much radiation is really being emitted into the atmosphere?
Phones, TV's, microwaves... what next? It's all being emitted into the atmosphere but how much radiation can we really take when there're new emerging technologies being invented all the time. When's enough really going to be enough?How much radiation is really being emitted into the atmosphere?
You are correct, that there are more and more things using the newer technologies.
We also need to think about the fact that there are many types of radiation. visible light and heat are radiation.
Good working microwaves should not leak any radiation. RADAR is the same radiation and is used .microwaves are also used to send tv and radio communication between towers.
The infrared used in a tv remote does not effect us.
There is greater radiation as w fly cross country. Pilots are only allowed so many cross country flights per month because of this radiation from outer space.
We do need to reduce the number of xrays we get.
Avoid ultraviolet (black light)
Keep LASER pointer beams from yes.Use ear piece instead of holding cell phone to the ear.
Use sun block, often
Sit away from tv's
Use an ear piece instead of holding the cell phone to the ear
There is natural radiation from radioactive materials being released all the time. [example is uranium which is in most rocks turning into radon. We do not want radon in our basement]
But, radiation being released into the air does not continue on and on and effect us that much.How much radiation is really being emitted into the atmosphere?
The key thing to consider is not the amount of radiation you receive but the amount of radiation that actually interacts with your body...
Every second about 6,000 trillion neutrinos pass through your body and, yet, there is really no health problem associated with that radiation source. The reason is that neutrinos interact very weakly with any kind of matter...
You are correct, that there are more and more things using the newer technologies.
We also need to think about the fact that there are many types of radiation. visible light and heat are radiation.
Good working microwaves should not leak any radiation. RADAR is the same radiation and is used .microwaves are also used to send tv and radio communication between towers.
The infrared used in a tv remote does not effect us.
There is greater radiation as w fly cross country. Pilots are only allowed so many cross country flights per month because of this radiation from outer space.
We do need to reduce the number of xrays we get.
Avoid ultraviolet (black light)
Keep LASER pointer beams from yes.Use ear piece instead of holding cell phone to the ear.
Use sun block, often
Sit away from tv's
Use an ear piece instead of holding the cell phone to the ear
There is natural radiation from radioactive materials being released all the time. [example is uranium which is in most rocks turning into radon. We do not want radon in our basement]
But, radiation being released into the air does not continue on and on and effect us that much.How much radiation is really being emitted into the atmosphere?
The key thing to consider is not the amount of radiation you receive but the amount of radiation that actually interacts with your body...
Every second about 6,000 trillion neutrinos pass through your body and, yet, there is really no health problem associated with that radiation source. The reason is that neutrinos interact very weakly with any kind of matter...
What is the difference between Chemo therahy and Radiation?
What is the difference between Chemo therahy and Radiation?
Which one is stronger than the other, please help me to explain.What is the difference between Chemo therahy and Radiation?
I am a radiotherapist.
Chemo was explained quite well by Angel_Blue. It is a drug, it can be delivered in the form of an injection, via a drip, as a tablet or even in a cream. the side effects are often systemic - ie. they affect the whole body.
Radiotherapy is the use of very high energy x-rays. It is usually used to treat cancer, but can be used for some other illnesses. it can be used to cure cancer, or just to reduce pain or othe problems associated with cancer. the side effects are usually localised ie- they only affect the area actually treated. a course of Radiotherapy can be given in 1 treatment, or as many as 37 treatments, they are usually given once a day, 5 days a week.What is the difference between Chemo therahy and Radiation?
Chemotherapy involves putting toxic drugs into a person's body through an I.V needle in your arm. Radiation is what's used in x-rays. I take chemo, so i don't know exactly how radiation works. I DO know chemo drugs have all sorts of side effects, and none of them are nice. Vomiting, nausea, weight loss, tired ALL the time, sleeping too much, hair loss.... and more. I know radiation gives you blisters like a sunburn, that pop and flake like a REAL sunburn, but that's all i know. Try looking it up online somewhere.What is the difference between Chemo therahy and Radiation?
Chemo is a drug and radiation is x ray radiation.
Which one is stronger than the other, please help me to explain.What is the difference between Chemo therahy and Radiation?
I am a radiotherapist.
Chemo was explained quite well by Angel_Blue. It is a drug, it can be delivered in the form of an injection, via a drip, as a tablet or even in a cream. the side effects are often systemic - ie. they affect the whole body.
Radiotherapy is the use of very high energy x-rays. It is usually used to treat cancer, but can be used for some other illnesses. it can be used to cure cancer, or just to reduce pain or othe problems associated with cancer. the side effects are usually localised ie- they only affect the area actually treated. a course of Radiotherapy can be given in 1 treatment, or as many as 37 treatments, they are usually given once a day, 5 days a week.What is the difference between Chemo therahy and Radiation?
Chemotherapy involves putting toxic drugs into a person's body through an I.V needle in your arm. Radiation is what's used in x-rays. I take chemo, so i don't know exactly how radiation works. I DO know chemo drugs have all sorts of side effects, and none of them are nice. Vomiting, nausea, weight loss, tired ALL the time, sleeping too much, hair loss.... and more. I know radiation gives you blisters like a sunburn, that pop and flake like a REAL sunburn, but that's all i know. Try looking it up online somewhere.What is the difference between Chemo therahy and Radiation?
Chemo is a drug and radiation is x ray radiation.
How long would it take to develop radiation sickness if you stood next to a piece of Plutonium?
With nothing like a radiation suit or lean plating to dampen the effects of the beta,alpha, and gamma radiation? As a matter of fact, just how radioactive is Plutonium/ And what is its' primary radiation output (Alpha, Beta, Gamma)How long would it take to develop radiation sickness if you stood next to a piece of Plutonium?
Things are not simple, they are complicated. That is the reason we old people make young people study math, physics and all kinds of stuff. Radiactivity is complicated (I should know. My Mom was one of the lead radiactivity physicians in my country).
So. Plutonium. Radiation sickness.
First of all, radiation is, of course, a very dangerous phenomena, not to be taken lightly, so I assume we are having just a theoretical discussion. I am 52-years-old and for me walking on the sidewalk is dangerous enough. For melanin-deficient people, that is caucasian or white people (I am Hispanic and melanin-normal, that is, dark skinned) getting exposed to solar radiation is no joking matter either. So, no actual standing next to plutonium, please! (Yeah, where would we find... Nevermind!).
Second of all, I assume we are not talking about a "critical mass" piece of Plutonium because if it becomes critical that means to be standing next to an exploding nuclear bomb. Radiation sickness would be the least of one's problems.
If it is just a piece of non-critical plutonium the main concern is radiation. Now, most isotopes of plutonium are just alpha-emitters. Alpha radiation is not penetrant at all. An effective "radiation shield" for alpha radiation would be a piece of paper or a couple of inches of air.
So nothing would happen to you if you just "stand" next to the piece of Plutonium.
What's a guy to do?
OK, you STICK the plutonium to your skin. No air shield. No nothing. Would you get radiation sickness? Probably not because, again, your skin would be shielding enough. What you would get is a pretty ugly sore or burn but on the thin superficial layer of your skin in actual touching contact to the plutonium. If it is large enough (large enough piece of plutonium, think a plutonium blanket) you would die from a large skin burn, just like people in house fires. Skin gets destroyed, you lose water, nutrients, get infections.
You would be dead, but the good news is you would not be dead of radiation poisoning but from just a plain burn caused by radiation.
I know. You still would be dead.
What else can one do with Plutonium? I know this was not the question but one could INJECT, EAT or INHALE Plutonium. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#T鈥?/a> actual accidents have happened but reportedly there have been no deaths. Apparently the dose was low enough that no radiation sickness happened, not even cancer was reported.
Now, what has happened, and again, this was not the question, was "criticality incidents" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#C鈥?/a> This is when the mass of plutonium approaches "critical mass". Technically this means that it is no longer "just" radioactive plutonium (emmitting alpha rays) but it starts to undergo nuclear fission, though not exploding and vaporizing 100 blocks of city. When approaching criticality plutonium undergoing nuclear fission (no longer "just" plutonium) DOES EMIT GAMMA RAYS, neutrons and all kinds of things.
Both in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Sloti鈥?/a> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#C鈥?/a> you can read that people exposed to a FEW SECONDS of this radiation died in 9 and 28 days. They did die of actual radiation sickness. But I repeat, technically this is not the answer to your question because they were exposed to a sub critical (not enough to explode) mass of plutonium undergoing nuclear fission which is NOT the same as "just" plutoniumHow long would it take to develop radiation sickness if you stood next to a piece of Plutonium?
Big enough piece and you will be in the middle of a nuclear explosion.
It's primary output is alpha particles. Standing next to it does not seem to be dangerous. It is when injected or ingested or inhaled that it becomes dangerous.
But as the mass approaches critical mass (about 10 kg, less in solution) the radiation output becomes very high and has killed several people already.
.How long would it take to develop radiation sickness if you stood next to a piece of Plutonium?
None of the three as far as plutonium239 is concerned. It tends to fission and to emit neutrons in so doing, which, if they are captured by other plutonium nuclei, will trigger further fission.
So if you are next to plutonium not undergoing a chain reaction, nothing will happen to you. But if you pile some pieces of plutonium together and get close to critical, then you might start a chain reaction and you would be irradiated very seriously, maybe lethally, in no time.
Things are not simple, they are complicated. That is the reason we old people make young people study math, physics and all kinds of stuff. Radiactivity is complicated (I should know. My Mom was one of the lead radiactivity physicians in my country).
So. Plutonium. Radiation sickness.
First of all, radiation is, of course, a very dangerous phenomena, not to be taken lightly, so I assume we are having just a theoretical discussion. I am 52-years-old and for me walking on the sidewalk is dangerous enough. For melanin-deficient people, that is caucasian or white people (I am Hispanic and melanin-normal, that is, dark skinned) getting exposed to solar radiation is no joking matter either. So, no actual standing next to plutonium, please! (Yeah, where would we find... Nevermind!).
Second of all, I assume we are not talking about a "critical mass" piece of Plutonium because if it becomes critical that means to be standing next to an exploding nuclear bomb. Radiation sickness would be the least of one's problems.
If it is just a piece of non-critical plutonium the main concern is radiation. Now, most isotopes of plutonium are just alpha-emitters. Alpha radiation is not penetrant at all. An effective "radiation shield" for alpha radiation would be a piece of paper or a couple of inches of air.
So nothing would happen to you if you just "stand" next to the piece of Plutonium.
What's a guy to do?
OK, you STICK the plutonium to your skin. No air shield. No nothing. Would you get radiation sickness? Probably not because, again, your skin would be shielding enough. What you would get is a pretty ugly sore or burn but on the thin superficial layer of your skin in actual touching contact to the plutonium. If it is large enough (large enough piece of plutonium, think a plutonium blanket) you would die from a large skin burn, just like people in house fires. Skin gets destroyed, you lose water, nutrients, get infections.
You would be dead, but the good news is you would not be dead of radiation poisoning but from just a plain burn caused by radiation.
I know. You still would be dead.
What else can one do with Plutonium? I know this was not the question but one could INJECT, EAT or INHALE Plutonium. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#T鈥?/a> actual accidents have happened but reportedly there have been no deaths. Apparently the dose was low enough that no radiation sickness happened, not even cancer was reported.
Now, what has happened, and again, this was not the question, was "criticality incidents" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#C鈥?/a> This is when the mass of plutonium approaches "critical mass". Technically this means that it is no longer "just" radioactive plutonium (emmitting alpha rays) but it starts to undergo nuclear fission, though not exploding and vaporizing 100 blocks of city. When approaching criticality plutonium undergoing nuclear fission (no longer "just" plutonium) DOES EMIT GAMMA RAYS, neutrons and all kinds of things.
Both in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Sloti鈥?/a> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#C鈥?/a> you can read that people exposed to a FEW SECONDS of this radiation died in 9 and 28 days. They did die of actual radiation sickness. But I repeat, technically this is not the answer to your question because they were exposed to a sub critical (not enough to explode) mass of plutonium undergoing nuclear fission which is NOT the same as "just" plutoniumHow long would it take to develop radiation sickness if you stood next to a piece of Plutonium?
Big enough piece and you will be in the middle of a nuclear explosion.
It's primary output is alpha particles. Standing next to it does not seem to be dangerous. It is when injected or ingested or inhaled that it becomes dangerous.
But as the mass approaches critical mass (about 10 kg, less in solution) the radiation output becomes very high and has killed several people already.
.How long would it take to develop radiation sickness if you stood next to a piece of Plutonium?
None of the three as far as plutonium239 is concerned. It tends to fission and to emit neutrons in so doing, which, if they are captured by other plutonium nuclei, will trigger further fission.
So if you are next to plutonium not undergoing a chain reaction, nothing will happen to you. But if you pile some pieces of plutonium together and get close to critical, then you might start a chain reaction and you would be irradiated very seriously, maybe lethally, in no time.
What is the relationship between radiation and cancer?
How are they related(does radiation cause cancer)?
Radiation such as mircowaves and what not.
What is the relationship between radiation and cancer?
You are using 2 broad terms creating a short question requiring long answers. There are many types of radiation, and almost 300 different types of cancer. Some types of radiations do cause some types of cancers. e.g.
UV rays from sun are a factor in skin cancers.
Excessive X-rays (e.g. from CT scans)
radiation from Radon a factor in lung cancers.
radioactive materials are factor in thyroid and other cancers. Microwaves in major amounts have some evidence to cancer causes.
Radiation is also a treatment for cancers.
Gamma rays for treating cancer such as brain cancer.
radioactive Iodine I131 kills thyroid cells and thyroid cancer.
Too much radiation can cause cancer. It's best to avoid it as much as possible. These days, that can really be a challenge.What is the relationship between radiation and cancer?
Ionizing radiation (high energy, changes the molecules) can damage cells, and if the person is susceptible to letting damaged cells bypass the natural process of cell death, then it can multiply and cause tumours. Ionizing radiation includes ultraviolet, microwaves and gamma rays. Radiation doesn't necessarily CAUSE cancer, but it is a contributing factor.
answer is in Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombingWhat is the relationship between radiation and cancer?
Radiation can cause cancer. It is in high doses. For instance, when there is a nuclear meltdown like Chernobyl, there are large cases of cancer in the people of that area. People who were exposed to large doses of any kind of radiation can develop cancer. Basically it changes the way your cells grow and that can lead to cancer.
Now, microwaves have not been shown to cause cancer yet. But some people think there is a correlation between all of our high tech gadgets and our higher cancer rates.
I have thyroid cancer and my doctors told me it was probably from some radiation exposure I had from CT scans. Now does that mean you will get cancer from one or two CT scans? NO - I had 22 in 30 days - I was dying from an infection from a surgery and they had to use CT scans to guide a drain into place - they moved it every day trying to save my life. These were CT scans with the injectable dye (Which is the radiation I'm speaking of). There has been shown to be a link between these types of tests if you have a lot in a short period of time, and thyroid cancer. I haven't heard about other cancers it can effect or give you a predisposition to.
you can visit http://www.cancerssociety.org for detail info....
Radiation such as mircowaves and what not.
What is the relationship between radiation and cancer?
You are using 2 broad terms creating a short question requiring long answers. There are many types of radiation, and almost 300 different types of cancer. Some types of radiations do cause some types of cancers. e.g.
UV rays from sun are a factor in skin cancers.
Excessive X-rays (e.g. from CT scans)
radiation from Radon a factor in lung cancers.
radioactive materials are factor in thyroid and other cancers. Microwaves in major amounts have some evidence to cancer causes.
Radiation is also a treatment for cancers.
Gamma rays for treating cancer such as brain cancer.
radioactive Iodine I131 kills thyroid cells and thyroid cancer.
Too much radiation can cause cancer. It's best to avoid it as much as possible. These days, that can really be a challenge.What is the relationship between radiation and cancer?
Ionizing radiation (high energy, changes the molecules) can damage cells, and if the person is susceptible to letting damaged cells bypass the natural process of cell death, then it can multiply and cause tumours. Ionizing radiation includes ultraviolet, microwaves and gamma rays. Radiation doesn't necessarily CAUSE cancer, but it is a contributing factor.
answer is in Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombingWhat is the relationship between radiation and cancer?
Radiation can cause cancer. It is in high doses. For instance, when there is a nuclear meltdown like Chernobyl, there are large cases of cancer in the people of that area. People who were exposed to large doses of any kind of radiation can develop cancer. Basically it changes the way your cells grow and that can lead to cancer.
Now, microwaves have not been shown to cause cancer yet. But some people think there is a correlation between all of our high tech gadgets and our higher cancer rates.
I have thyroid cancer and my doctors told me it was probably from some radiation exposure I had from CT scans. Now does that mean you will get cancer from one or two CT scans? NO - I had 22 in 30 days - I was dying from an infection from a surgery and they had to use CT scans to guide a drain into place - they moved it every day trying to save my life. These were CT scans with the injectable dye (Which is the radiation I'm speaking of). There has been shown to be a link between these types of tests if you have a lot in a short period of time, and thyroid cancer. I haven't heard about other cancers it can effect or give you a predisposition to.
you can visit http://www.cancerssociety.org for detail info....
How does radiation effect you on Fall out 3?
I watch my friend play fall out 3 a lot. He is scared to eat things that are radiated. I was just wondering if the radiation will effect you later on in the game or what it does.How does radiation effect you on Fall out 3?
radiation is measured in rads on your rad meter. as the meter increases your player will incur side effects
200 rads: -1 ENG
400 rads: -2 ENG, -1 AG
600 rads: -3 ENG, -2 AG, -1 ST
800 rads: -3 ENG, -2 AG, -2 ST
1000 rads: DEATH!
so basically eat and drink what ever you want, just remember to get the radiation poisoning cured before you reach 1000 rads, but it would be wise to cure it before you gain to many rads. How does radiation effect you on Fall out 3?
i don't know anything about that game, but
radiated food does not emit radiation. it is simply a substance that has been exposed to radiation.
some food is radiated to kill bad things that could be in the food (virii etc). it does not make the food emit radiation.
you (and he) are exposed to radiation every day too. cosmic rays, medical/dental x-rays, smoke detectors, radon, etc etc.
we all get on average 360 mrem/year of a radiation dose from such sources. this rate varies by factors of 2-3-4 due to location, altitude, and lifestyle.dragon age 2 pc calculate percentage
radiation is measured in rads on your rad meter. as the meter increases your player will incur side effects
200 rads: -1 ENG
400 rads: -2 ENG, -1 AG
600 rads: -3 ENG, -2 AG, -1 ST
800 rads: -3 ENG, -2 AG, -2 ST
1000 rads: DEATH!
so basically eat and drink what ever you want, just remember to get the radiation poisoning cured before you reach 1000 rads, but it would be wise to cure it before you gain to many rads. How does radiation effect you on Fall out 3?
i don't know anything about that game, but
radiated food does not emit radiation. it is simply a substance that has been exposed to radiation.
some food is radiated to kill bad things that could be in the food (virii etc). it does not make the food emit radiation.
you (and he) are exposed to radiation every day too. cosmic rays, medical/dental x-rays, smoke detectors, radon, etc etc.
we all get on average 360 mrem/year of a radiation dose from such sources. this rate varies by factors of 2-3-4 due to location, altitude, and lifestyle.
What is the frequency of radiation whose wavelength is 16.40 脜?
What is the frequency of radiation whose wavelength is 16.40 脜
What is the wavelength of radiation that has a frequency of 2.4 1012 s-1?What is the frequency of radiation whose wavelength is 16.40 脜?
Planck's Law
位 = c/v
Where: 位 = wavelength c = speed of light and v = frequency
Note:
The speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s
1 脜 = 100 x 10^-12 m
Therefore 16.40 脜 = 1.64 x 10^-9 m
Now we can calculate the frequency.
v = c/位 = (299,792,458 m/s)/(1.64 x 10^-9 m)
v = 1.828 x 10^17 (1/s)
For the second question use the same equation
位 = c/v = (299,792,458 m/s)/(2.4 x 10^12 s-1)
位 = 1.249 x 10^-4 m
Hope this help!!!!
Note: If you answer the question as the person said above you will get a frequency with units of energy. It is E = h*v not 位 = hvWhat is the frequency of radiation whose wavelength is 16.40 脜?
wavelength = h * frequency (h is planks constant = 6.626 ^-34)
convert 16.40 A to m = 1.64^-9 m
so frequence is 1.64^-9/6.626^-34
=2.486^24 s-1
The other one is solved simlarly. The answer is 1.6^-21
What is the wavelength of radiation that has a frequency of 2.4 1012 s-1?What is the frequency of radiation whose wavelength is 16.40 脜?
Planck's Law
位 = c/v
Where: 位 = wavelength c = speed of light and v = frequency
Note:
The speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s
1 脜 = 100 x 10^-12 m
Therefore 16.40 脜 = 1.64 x 10^-9 m
Now we can calculate the frequency.
v = c/位 = (299,792,458 m/s)/(1.64 x 10^-9 m)
v = 1.828 x 10^17 (1/s)
For the second question use the same equation
位 = c/v = (299,792,458 m/s)/(2.4 x 10^12 s-1)
位 = 1.249 x 10^-4 m
Hope this help!!!!
Note: If you answer the question as the person said above you will get a frequency with units of energy. It is E = h*v not 位 = hvWhat is the frequency of radiation whose wavelength is 16.40 脜?
wavelength = h * frequency (h is planks constant = 6.626 ^-34)
convert 16.40 A to m = 1.64^-9 m
so frequence is 1.64^-9/6.626^-34
=2.486^24 s-1
The other one is solved simlarly. The answer is 1.6^-21
If nuclear radiation comes to america and its bad what happens to inmates in jails who get sick?
If there is major radiation and everyone gets sick what happens to prisoners? Is there some law about this?If nuclear radiation comes to america and its bad what happens to inmates in jails who get sick?
They die and we as the tax payers get to save money on up keep.
D
No one is going to get sick. The radiation is going to fall into the sea, and even if some of it gets here, it won't be enough to make anyone sick. Even if the nuclear reactor in Japan completely melts down and explodes, there won't be more than a very small amount that makes it here.
You have to remember that we all get a little radiation every day anyway, from a variety of sources, some of them completely natural. If you get on a plane for a couple of hours, you'll get more radiation than you will from the reactor in Japan.
The law is that even the worst prisoners have a right to medical care. So they would be taken care of.If nuclear radiation comes to america and its bad what happens to inmates in jails who get sick?
Why the focus on prisoners? What an odd question...
There will not be major radiation coming to the US, at least not from Japan. If there was a radiation release of a different sort that threatened the US, prisoners would actually be better off than ordinary people. Many of them live in prisons with heavy walls and all the doors and windows are already sealed. They'd be well protected from any fallout. Who knows, maybe if the crisis was severe enough the prisoners would all get kicked out onto the streets so ordinary citizens could take shelter in the prisons?
They would get treated like everyone else. They are human after all.
And can you imagine the lawsuits the states that don't treat them would have to pay out? It would be a lot more than what it would cost to treat them. There is a thing called the 8th Amendment, and refusing to treat them just because they are in prison would be a violation of this.If nuclear radiation comes to america and its bad what happens to inmates in jails who get sick?
If you are talking about in Japan. WEll i dont think it will come to america and if it were and it wouldnt be extremely harmful, which it wont be, but if it was they would relocate people
Because they are incarcerated, they will probably get medical aid before the General Public! They have no place to go to help themselves!
They will be transferred if the leak is in the area, if it is everywhere then nothing will change.
Let them die. Most of them deserve to be executed anyway.
They die and we as the tax payers get to save money on up keep.
D
No one is going to get sick. The radiation is going to fall into the sea, and even if some of it gets here, it won't be enough to make anyone sick. Even if the nuclear reactor in Japan completely melts down and explodes, there won't be more than a very small amount that makes it here.
You have to remember that we all get a little radiation every day anyway, from a variety of sources, some of them completely natural. If you get on a plane for a couple of hours, you'll get more radiation than you will from the reactor in Japan.
The law is that even the worst prisoners have a right to medical care. So they would be taken care of.If nuclear radiation comes to america and its bad what happens to inmates in jails who get sick?
Why the focus on prisoners? What an odd question...
There will not be major radiation coming to the US, at least not from Japan. If there was a radiation release of a different sort that threatened the US, prisoners would actually be better off than ordinary people. Many of them live in prisons with heavy walls and all the doors and windows are already sealed. They'd be well protected from any fallout. Who knows, maybe if the crisis was severe enough the prisoners would all get kicked out onto the streets so ordinary citizens could take shelter in the prisons?
They would get treated like everyone else. They are human after all.
And can you imagine the lawsuits the states that don't treat them would have to pay out? It would be a lot more than what it would cost to treat them. There is a thing called the 8th Amendment, and refusing to treat them just because they are in prison would be a violation of this.If nuclear radiation comes to america and its bad what happens to inmates in jails who get sick?
If you are talking about in Japan. WEll i dont think it will come to america and if it were and it wouldnt be extremely harmful, which it wont be, but if it was they would relocate people
Because they are incarcerated, they will probably get medical aid before the General Public! They have no place to go to help themselves!
They will be transferred if the leak is in the area, if it is everywhere then nothing will change.
Let them die. Most of them deserve to be executed anyway.
What can you tell me about tvs and radiation?
Does the size of a television affect the amount of radiation emited? And also, Is there a certain safety distance one should be away from it?What can you tell me about tvs and radiation?
The issue of radiation has been addressed in old TV screens (tube based) and is quite negligible in modern TVs. Even the shortest distance will have no impact (impact is less than normal environmental radiation). With LCD and Plasma screens, you are even better off, as their mechanism of operation has no tube and does not use a fast-traveling electron beam.What can you tell me about tvs and radiation?
Television picture tubes are coated with phosphorus that glows when hit with electrons.
The picture tube does give off radiation, and it can be absorbed by humans if they are close to it for long periods of time.
I believe that at least four feet away is a safe distance, but farther would be better. The larger the screen, the more it will give off. I haven't heard anything if the new flat screens or the plasma screens give any radiation off or not.
The issue of radiation has been addressed in old TV screens (tube based) and is quite negligible in modern TVs. Even the shortest distance will have no impact (impact is less than normal environmental radiation). With LCD and Plasma screens, you are even better off, as their mechanism of operation has no tube and does not use a fast-traveling electron beam.What can you tell me about tvs and radiation?
Television picture tubes are coated with phosphorus that glows when hit with electrons.
The picture tube does give off radiation, and it can be absorbed by humans if they are close to it for long periods of time.
I believe that at least four feet away is a safe distance, but farther would be better. The larger the screen, the more it will give off. I haven't heard anything if the new flat screens or the plasma screens give any radiation off or not.
What is the frequency of radiation that has a wavelength of 0.940 碌m?
b. What is the wavelength of radiation that has a frequency of 5.69 1014 s-1
c. What distance does electromagnetic radiation travel in 53.9 s?What is the frequency of radiation that has a wavelength of 0.940 碌m?
a)frequency =wavelength* speed of light
=0.94*10^(-6)*3*10^8 sec-1
b)wavelength=frequency/speed of light
c)in 1 sec electromagnetic radiation travels 3*10^8 mts
hence in 53.9 s sec electromagnetic radiation travels 3*10^8 *53.9 mts
c. What distance does electromagnetic radiation travel in 53.9 s?What is the frequency of radiation that has a wavelength of 0.940 碌m?
a)frequency =wavelength* speed of light
=0.94*10^(-6)*3*10^8 sec-1
b)wavelength=frequency/speed of light
c)in 1 sec electromagnetic radiation travels 3*10^8 mts
hence in 53.9 s sec electromagnetic radiation travels 3*10^8 *53.9 mts
What are the health risks to becoming a Radiation Therapist?
Please respond if you can give some critical and specific information maybe through personal experience or through data. I would like to know if there is information out there about whether people in this field are popping up with health complications related to being exposed to radiation. Thanks!What are the health risks to becoming a Radiation Therapist?
mental health risks from dealing with sick, cranky people.What are the health risks to becoming a Radiation Therapist?
There are none. The Radiation Therapists are not in the room with you, while you are receiving Radiation. They are in the back, watching you on a computer screen.What are the health risks to becoming a Radiation Therapist?
Since there's several feet of lead, concrete, and plastic between the linear accelerator and you at the control station, you'll receive a higher dose of radiation from the computer monitor than from the linear accelerator. The state regulator agency also requires the department to periodically monitor the radiation level in the department, and the allowable radiation level can't exceed certain thresholds based on the amount of time anyone spends in that area. You're more susceptible In larger radiation departments that offer HDR treatment, where there's a radioactive isotope that's stored in the department and generates the radiation for those treatments (vs the LINAC, which is electrical). But there are lead vests for those rare cases.
Your principle health risk is going to be similar to other health workers: back injuries from failing to ask for help transfering patients from a stretcher to the LINAC table.envy 14 google translations
mental health risks from dealing with sick, cranky people.What are the health risks to becoming a Radiation Therapist?
There are none. The Radiation Therapists are not in the room with you, while you are receiving Radiation. They are in the back, watching you on a computer screen.What are the health risks to becoming a Radiation Therapist?
Since there's several feet of lead, concrete, and plastic between the linear accelerator and you at the control station, you'll receive a higher dose of radiation from the computer monitor than from the linear accelerator. The state regulator agency also requires the department to periodically monitor the radiation level in the department, and the allowable radiation level can't exceed certain thresholds based on the amount of time anyone spends in that area. You're more susceptible In larger radiation departments that offer HDR treatment, where there's a radioactive isotope that's stored in the department and generates the radiation for those treatments (vs the LINAC, which is electrical). But there are lead vests for those rare cases.
Your principle health risk is going to be similar to other health workers: back injuries from failing to ask for help transfering patients from a stretcher to the LINAC table.
The majority of the radiation from the nuclear plant will blow east into the ocean. What effect will that have?
The jet stream moves from west to east. The nuclear power plant is on the ocean. The winds are westerly winds (which means they are blowing eastward). Japan won't even get stuck with most of the radiation. Experts say the vast majority of radiation will blow over and into the Pacific Ocean. What happens then? Will the ocean dilute the radiation? Could the radiation wash up on the shores of Hawaii and the west coast of the U.S.? What happens when the radiation gets into the ocean? How about living creatures in the ocean? How will that affect them?The majority of the radiation from the nuclear plant will blow east into the ocean. What effect will that have?
hi. everything will be ok. there will only be light background radiation on the west coast. i had to go to this new site to find out the info, it is very helpful. love, kelli http://tinyurl.com/4ekgw8eThe majority of the radiation from the nuclear plant will blow east into the ocean. What effect will that have?
like we already saw in several japanese movies
there will be a huge creature emerging from the sea
and it will be called godzillaThe majority of the radiation from the nuclear plant will blow east into the ocean. What effect will that have?
It will be spread far enough apart to minimize any impact.
hi. everything will be ok. there will only be light background radiation on the west coast. i had to go to this new site to find out the info, it is very helpful. love, kelli http://tinyurl.com/4ekgw8eThe majority of the radiation from the nuclear plant will blow east into the ocean. What effect will that have?
like we already saw in several japanese movies
there will be a huge creature emerging from the sea
and it will be called godzillaThe majority of the radiation from the nuclear plant will blow east into the ocean. What effect will that have?
It will be spread far enough apart to minimize any impact.
Adaptive radiation is a term used to describe the changes in finch bills on the Galapagos islands.?
Adaptive radiation is a term used to describe the changes in finch bills on the Galapagos islands. What actually happens in adaptive radiation? (Do finches glow in the dark?) What kind of radiation is this?Adaptive radiation is a term used to describe the changes in finch bills on the Galapagos islands.?
LOL! No, their bills do not glow in the dark.
Adaptive radiation is the term used to describe a rapid and vast amount of diversity among different species that all came from a common ancestor.
This is a very common occurrence in islands due to the varying types of mini-environments around them, thus creating many different niches which will lead to many different species.
Adaptive radiation is also usually the result of a Founder Effect, or a Bottleneck.
If you don't know what those evolutionary terms are either, just e-mail me.Adaptive radiation is a term used to describe the changes in finch bills on the Galapagos islands.?
adaptive radiation is where a trait is first obtained at a point, or a specific place. This trait then radiates out from that central point. Eventually this trait may be found to be dominant within a very large radius of the original central point. It has nothing to do with radiation as in nuclear radiation.
LOL! No, their bills do not glow in the dark.
Adaptive radiation is the term used to describe a rapid and vast amount of diversity among different species that all came from a common ancestor.
This is a very common occurrence in islands due to the varying types of mini-environments around them, thus creating many different niches which will lead to many different species.
Adaptive radiation is also usually the result of a Founder Effect, or a Bottleneck.
If you don't know what those evolutionary terms are either, just e-mail me.Adaptive radiation is a term used to describe the changes in finch bills on the Galapagos islands.?
adaptive radiation is where a trait is first obtained at a point, or a specific place. This trait then radiates out from that central point. Eventually this trait may be found to be dominant within a very large radius of the original central point. It has nothing to do with radiation as in nuclear radiation.
Can someone explain to me in simple terms what is radiation?
Can someone explain to me in simple terms what is radiation?
In general. And what is ionizing radiation?Can someone explain to me in simple terms what is radiation?
Radiation is basically any process by which energy is transmitted through space and absorbed by an object.
Ionizing radiation is the radiation most people think of, which occurs as a result of nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors and such. Ionizing radiation is simply radiation that has enough energy to rip electrons off of atoms, making them ions, hence the name ionizing radiation.Can someone explain to me in simple terms what is radiation?
SIMPLE MEANING : energy travel inform of wave is konwn as radiation.
EXAMPLE: Gamma ray , radioactive , beta ray , alpha rayCan someone explain to me in simple terms what is radiation?
Dear in fact we got three type of rays from sun 1. light 2.heat 3.radiation .
radiation rays are used in our wireless comunication they spread across the world in time less than on second so these are so suitable for comunication. these rays are not good for human health too the can effect human health.
mes is right. the other answers make no sense
In general. And what is ionizing radiation?Can someone explain to me in simple terms what is radiation?
Radiation is basically any process by which energy is transmitted through space and absorbed by an object.
Ionizing radiation is the radiation most people think of, which occurs as a result of nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors and such. Ionizing radiation is simply radiation that has enough energy to rip electrons off of atoms, making them ions, hence the name ionizing radiation.Can someone explain to me in simple terms what is radiation?
SIMPLE MEANING : energy travel inform of wave is konwn as radiation.
EXAMPLE: Gamma ray , radioactive , beta ray , alpha rayCan someone explain to me in simple terms what is radiation?
Dear in fact we got three type of rays from sun 1. light 2.heat 3.radiation .
radiation rays are used in our wireless comunication they spread across the world in time less than on second so these are so suitable for comunication. these rays are not good for human health too the can effect human health.
mes is right. the other answers make no sense
What would the radiation intensity be if the detector was 30.6 meters from the source?
A radiation detector which is located 6.29 meters from a radiation source indicates a radiation intensity of 311 mCi (millicuries). What would the radiation intensity be if the detector was 30.6 meters from the source?What would the radiation intensity be if the detector was 30.6 meters from the source?
The detected radiation is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source to the detector. Hence the answer is:
(311 mCi)*(6.29/30.6)^2 = 13.1 mCi
The detected radiation is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source to the detector. Hence the answer is:
(311 mCi)*(6.29/30.6)^2 = 13.1 mCi
What is the maximum wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that can cause a transition?
Rod cells in the retina of the eye detect light using a photopigment called rhodopsin. 1.8eV is the lowest photon energy that can trigger a response in rhodopsin. What is the maximum wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that can cause a transition?
Can you please give an exact equation to solve this?What is the maximum wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that can cause a transition?
~689 nm, dark red.
E = ch/lambda, c = light vel, h = Planck's constant (eV-based) = 4.13567E-15 eV-sWhat is the maximum wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that can cause a transition?
Thank-you.shedd aquarium longhorn steakhouse locations
Can you please give an exact equation to solve this?What is the maximum wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that can cause a transition?
~689 nm, dark red.
E = ch/lambda, c = light vel, h = Planck's constant (eV-based) = 4.13567E-15 eV-sWhat is the maximum wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that can cause a transition?
Thank-you.
Report Abuse
Can someone explain to me in simple terms what is radiation?
Can someone explain to me in simple terms what is radiation?
In general. And what is ionizing radiation?Can someone explain to me in simple terms what is radiation?
Radiation is basically any process by which energy is transmitted through space and absorbed by an object.
Ionizing radiation is the radiation most people think of, which occurs as a result of nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors and such. Ionizing radiation is simply radiation that has enough energy to rip electrons off of atoms, making them ions, hence the name ionizing radiation.Can someone explain to me in simple terms what is radiation?
SIMPLE MEANING : energy travel inform of wave is konwn as radiation.
EXAMPLE: Gamma ray , radioactive , beta ray , alpha rayCan someone explain to me in simple terms what is radiation?
Dear in fact we got three type of rays from sun 1. light 2.heat 3.radiation .
radiation rays are used in our wireless comunication they spread across the world in time less than on second so these are so suitable for comunication. these rays are not good for human health too the can effect human health.
mes is right. the other answers make no sense
In general. And what is ionizing radiation?Can someone explain to me in simple terms what is radiation?
Radiation is basically any process by which energy is transmitted through space and absorbed by an object.
Ionizing radiation is the radiation most people think of, which occurs as a result of nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors and such. Ionizing radiation is simply radiation that has enough energy to rip electrons off of atoms, making them ions, hence the name ionizing radiation.Can someone explain to me in simple terms what is radiation?
SIMPLE MEANING : energy travel inform of wave is konwn as radiation.
EXAMPLE: Gamma ray , radioactive , beta ray , alpha rayCan someone explain to me in simple terms what is radiation?
Dear in fact we got three type of rays from sun 1. light 2.heat 3.radiation .
radiation rays are used in our wireless comunication they spread across the world in time less than on second so these are so suitable for comunication. these rays are not good for human health too the can effect human health.
mes is right. the other answers make no sense
What would the radiation intensity be if the detector was 30.6 meters from the source?
A radiation detector which is located 6.29 meters from a radiation source indicates a radiation intensity of 311 mCi (millicuries). What would the radiation intensity be if the detector was 30.6 meters from the source?What would the radiation intensity be if the detector was 30.6 meters from the source?
The detected radiation is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source to the detector. Hence the answer is:
(311 mCi)*(6.29/30.6)^2 = 13.1 mCi
The detected radiation is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source to the detector. Hence the answer is:
(311 mCi)*(6.29/30.6)^2 = 13.1 mCi
What is the maximum wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that can cause a transition?
Rod cells in the retina of the eye detect light using a photopigment called rhodopsin. 1.8eV is the lowest photon energy that can trigger a response in rhodopsin. What is the maximum wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that can cause a transition?
Can you please give an exact equation to solve this?What is the maximum wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that can cause a transition?
~689 nm, dark red.
E = ch/lambda, c = light vel, h = Planck's constant (eV-based) = 4.13567E-15 eV-sWhat is the maximum wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that can cause a transition?
Thank-you.
Can you please give an exact equation to solve this?What is the maximum wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that can cause a transition?
~689 nm, dark red.
E = ch/lambda, c = light vel, h = Planck's constant (eV-based) = 4.13567E-15 eV-sWhat is the maximum wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that can cause a transition?
Thank-you.
Report Abuse
How does inward force of gravity overcome outward force of radiation pressure during the end of a star's life?
Choose only ONE:
a. As the star gets bigger, the force of gravity also gets bigger, while the radiation pressure stays the same.
b. The star fuses more hydrogen as it gets near the end of its life, then the fusion of hydrogen is converted to gravity.
c. Near the end of its life, a star runs out of hydrogen to fuse, and fusion is what creates the radiation pressure.
d. Gravity increases with time, so the older a star gets, the more it is affected by the force of gravity.How does inward force of gravity overcome outward force of radiation pressure during the end of a star's life?
when there is nothing to burn gravity overcomes the power of nuclear fusion because there is no nuclear fusionHow does inward force of gravity overcome outward force of radiation pressure during the end of a star's life?
The amount of gravitation force an object exerts on other objects depends on two things only: the objects mass and how far the object is from the second object. The density of the object has no effect on the amount of gravitational force it has. For example, Saturn has the similiar denisty as cork,
abcd and are all correct except with C needing hydrogen to fuse. Many elements fuse all the way up to iron.(hence the color of the star) And A radiation pressure fluctuates as a star cycles though elements to fuse due to the changing force of gravity.
Gravity does change as the star shrinks because the cores matter becomes more dense. And radiation pressure dramtically rises when a star becomes a red giant.
a. As the star gets bigger, the force of gravity also gets bigger, while the radiation pressure stays the same.
b. The star fuses more hydrogen as it gets near the end of its life, then the fusion of hydrogen is converted to gravity.
c. Near the end of its life, a star runs out of hydrogen to fuse, and fusion is what creates the radiation pressure.
d. Gravity increases with time, so the older a star gets, the more it is affected by the force of gravity.How does inward force of gravity overcome outward force of radiation pressure during the end of a star's life?
when there is nothing to burn gravity overcomes the power of nuclear fusion because there is no nuclear fusionHow does inward force of gravity overcome outward force of radiation pressure during the end of a star's life?
The amount of gravitation force an object exerts on other objects depends on two things only: the objects mass and how far the object is from the second object. The density of the object has no effect on the amount of gravitational force it has. For example, Saturn has the similiar denisty as cork,
Report Abuse
How does inward force of gravity overcome outward force of radiation pressure during the end of a star's life?abcd and are all correct except with C needing hydrogen to fuse. Many elements fuse all the way up to iron.(hence the color of the star) And A radiation pressure fluctuates as a star cycles though elements to fuse due to the changing force of gravity.
Gravity does change as the star shrinks because the cores matter becomes more dense. And radiation pressure dramtically rises when a star becomes a red giant.
What is the best way to remove radiation around the home?
Is there any simple methods you can do in order to remove low level or even high levels of radiation in the home, par using less electric Appliances.What is the best way to remove radiation around the home?
Use potassium iodide, gets rid of thyroid cancer! http://www.purchase-potassium-iodide.co.鈥?/a> is where to get some.What is the best way to remove radiation around the home?
Short answer: Don't panic, but you cant do much of anything about it except wait a few thousand years. But unless you live next to chernobyl or inside of the nuclear reactor in japan, there is nothing to fear.
Long answer: There are more sources of radiation in your life than you know about. Did you know the potassium in a banana is radioactive? Just living on earth, you are exposed to plenty of sources of radiation throughout the day, and none of which you can avoid. This is not a bad thing though. Radiation is only harmful if you get a lot of it fast. The only way to get rid of what radiation you can is to open up your house and get fresh air in. Radon gas seeps out of the ground and is radioactive, but it can be blown out of your basement with a gentle breeze. Anything with potassium (bananas) can be thrown out, although this might make you sick. If you have any bright orange plates from the 50s and 60s, they might have been pigmented with uranium, and I would throw those out (or donate to the local university physics dept) for safety sake.
If you live outside of japan or chernobyl don't worry, the sheer distance from the event means no harmful amount radiation will reach you. If you live near fukushima, you are receiving about 3.5 micro Sieverts a day. If you have taken a chest CT scan before, you have received 5,800 micro Sieverts in a much shorter time. So, you can rest assured you are in no danger.What is the best way to remove radiation around the home?
Open the windows so that you get a breeze.
Open the "vents" in your crawl space or basement. radon gas gathers in low areas, but is EASILY blown away by even a tiny breeze. Put a fan in your basement.
Electrical appliances DO NOT give of radiation.
DO U LIVE IN JAPAN? I MEAN DAMN.... LOL CONTACT UR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE ABOUT UR PROBLEM, ITS A SERIOUS HEALTH RISKbrazilian steakhouse baton rouge
Use potassium iodide, gets rid of thyroid cancer! http://www.purchase-potassium-iodide.co.鈥?/a> is where to get some.What is the best way to remove radiation around the home?
Short answer: Don't panic, but you cant do much of anything about it except wait a few thousand years. But unless you live next to chernobyl or inside of the nuclear reactor in japan, there is nothing to fear.
Long answer: There are more sources of radiation in your life than you know about. Did you know the potassium in a banana is radioactive? Just living on earth, you are exposed to plenty of sources of radiation throughout the day, and none of which you can avoid. This is not a bad thing though. Radiation is only harmful if you get a lot of it fast. The only way to get rid of what radiation you can is to open up your house and get fresh air in. Radon gas seeps out of the ground and is radioactive, but it can be blown out of your basement with a gentle breeze. Anything with potassium (bananas) can be thrown out, although this might make you sick. If you have any bright orange plates from the 50s and 60s, they might have been pigmented with uranium, and I would throw those out (or donate to the local university physics dept) for safety sake.
If you live outside of japan or chernobyl don't worry, the sheer distance from the event means no harmful amount radiation will reach you. If you live near fukushima, you are receiving about 3.5 micro Sieverts a day. If you have taken a chest CT scan before, you have received 5,800 micro Sieverts in a much shorter time. So, you can rest assured you are in no danger.What is the best way to remove radiation around the home?
Open the windows so that you get a breeze.
Open the "vents" in your crawl space or basement. radon gas gathers in low areas, but is EASILY blown away by even a tiny breeze. Put a fan in your basement.
Electrical appliances DO NOT give of radiation.
DO U LIVE IN JAPAN? I MEAN DAMN.... LOL CONTACT UR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE ABOUT UR PROBLEM, ITS A SERIOUS HEALTH RISK
What do you need to do to become a radiation therapist?
Where can I find places that will get me into a program for radiation therapy? Is it better to get an associate's degree or is a certification fine? Also, what is the difference between radiation therapist and nuclear medication technologist?What do you need to do to become a radiation therapist?
You need to attend an accredited program, whether it is Radiation Therapy or Nuclear Medicine. You can find these here:
http://www.arrt.org/index.html?content=h鈥?/a>
A radiation therapist delivers radiation to cancer patients, in order to try to slow or stop the cancerous growths. For details:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos299.htm
A nuclear medicine technologist uses radioactive isotopes to help diagnose disease or conditions. For details:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos104.htm
What do you need to do to become a radiation therapist?
Sorry, didn't see your updated question. Go to https://www.asrt.org/media/pdf鈥?/a>
You will see how much a radiation therapist made in your state in 2007
You need to attend an accredited program, whether it is Radiation Therapy or Nuclear Medicine. You can find these here:
http://www.arrt.org/index.html?content=h鈥?/a>
A radiation therapist delivers radiation to cancer patients, in order to try to slow or stop the cancerous growths. For details:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos299.htm
A nuclear medicine technologist uses radioactive isotopes to help diagnose disease or conditions. For details:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos104.htm
What do you need to do to become a radiation therapist?
Sorry, didn't see your updated question. Go to https://www.asrt.org/media/pdf鈥?/a>
You will see how much a radiation therapist made in your state in 2007
Report Abuse
What is the difference between the cosmic microwave background radiation and the cosmic rays?
I don't want to hear about their sources of origin.
I know the the cosmic microwave radiation is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang and the cosmic rays are the products of supernovas and presumably black holes.
I want to know what the PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES between both types of radiations are. (Or are they the same?)What is the difference between the cosmic microwave background radiation and the cosmic rays?
CMBR is microwave radiation. Part of the electromagnetic spectrum like radio waves, visible light, and xrays.
Cosmic Rays are actually subatomic particles like protons, electrons, and helium nuclei that are moving at nearly the speed of light. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that cosmic rays are responsible in part for the evolution of life on earth in that they can cause mutations when they strike a molecule of DNA. Occasionally the mutations are beneficial to the organism. Just one more way that our lives are deeply connected to the universe.What is the difference between the cosmic microwave background radiation and the cosmic rays?
Nope, different things. Cosmic rays are basically just super-energetic charged subatomic particles (i.e. protons, electrons, etc..), while the CMB is an emission of uniform, black body thermal energy. So in other words, cosmic rays = matter, while the CMB = energy.What is the difference between the cosmic microwave background radiation and the cosmic rays?
CMBR is based in the electromagnetic spectrum, in this case the microwave region.
COSMIC RAYS are actual, physical subatomic particles.
I know the the cosmic microwave radiation is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang and the cosmic rays are the products of supernovas and presumably black holes.
I want to know what the PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES between both types of radiations are. (Or are they the same?)What is the difference between the cosmic microwave background radiation and the cosmic rays?
CMBR is microwave radiation. Part of the electromagnetic spectrum like radio waves, visible light, and xrays.
Cosmic Rays are actually subatomic particles like protons, electrons, and helium nuclei that are moving at nearly the speed of light. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that cosmic rays are responsible in part for the evolution of life on earth in that they can cause mutations when they strike a molecule of DNA. Occasionally the mutations are beneficial to the organism. Just one more way that our lives are deeply connected to the universe.What is the difference between the cosmic microwave background radiation and the cosmic rays?
Nope, different things. Cosmic rays are basically just super-energetic charged subatomic particles (i.e. protons, electrons, etc..), while the CMB is an emission of uniform, black body thermal energy. So in other words, cosmic rays = matter, while the CMB = energy.What is the difference between the cosmic microwave background radiation and the cosmic rays?
CMBR is based in the electromagnetic spectrum, in this case the microwave region.
COSMIC RAYS are actual, physical subatomic particles.
What types of radiation cause damage to bacteria?
Do all forms of radiation cause damage to bacteria, or is it only certain forms of radiation such as UV rays.What types of radiation cause damage to bacteria?
Ultraviolet light kills bacteria by damaging the DNA. UV radiation disrupts the chemical bonds that hold the atoms of DNA together in the microorganism. If the damage is severe enough, the bacteria cannot repair the damage and will die. Longer exposure to UV light is necessary to ensure complete kill-off of all bacteria. Unlike chemical treatments, UV-treated air or water does not resist re-contamination.
Ultraviolet light kills bacteria by damaging the DNA. UV radiation disrupts the chemical bonds that hold the atoms of DNA together in the microorganism. If the damage is severe enough, the bacteria cannot repair the damage and will die. Longer exposure to UV light is necessary to ensure complete kill-off of all bacteria. Unlike chemical treatments, UV-treated air or water does not resist re-contamination.
What is the wavelength of the radiation emitted by the antenna?
A radio antenna is connected to an electronic circuit that oscillates 100 million times per second. What is the wavelength of the radiation emitted by the antenna? How would i work this problem out? thanksWhat is the wavelength of the radiation emitted by the antenna?
100 MHz. (Megahertz)What is the wavelength of the radiation emitted by the antenna?
Its too hard to write the formula down in this box.
Try this page:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk鈥?/a>What is the wavelength of the radiation emitted by the antenna?
100 cycles per second is equal to 100Mhz.
100Mhz equals 3 meters in wavelength terms.
A rough guide to frequency to wave length conversion is this.
If you can memorize this you will always be able to work it out.
1Mhz = 300Mb
10Mhz = 30Mb
100Mhz = 3Mb
1000Mhz = 30cm
10000Mhz =3cm
I think you see the pattern.
100 MHz. (Megahertz)What is the wavelength of the radiation emitted by the antenna?
Its too hard to write the formula down in this box.
Try this page:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk鈥?/a>What is the wavelength of the radiation emitted by the antenna?
100 cycles per second is equal to 100Mhz.
100Mhz equals 3 meters in wavelength terms.
A rough guide to frequency to wave length conversion is this.
If you can memorize this you will always be able to work it out.
1Mhz = 300Mb
10Mhz = 30Mb
100Mhz = 3Mb
1000Mhz = 30cm
10000Mhz =3cm
I think you see the pattern.
What is the longest wavelength of radiation that possesses the necessary energy to break the bond?
The energy from radiation can be used to cause the rupture of chemical bonds. A minimum energy of 941 kJ/ mol is required to break the nitrogen-nitrogen bond in N_2.
how would i do this?
thank you!What is the longest wavelength of radiation that possesses the necessary energy to break the bond?
I calculate the energy by molecule dividing energy by mole by Avogadro's number (6.022*10^23)
941kJ=9.41*10^5J
so energy by molecule
E= 9.41*10^5/6.022*10^23=1.563*10^-18J
I calculate the wavelength (w) given by E=hc/w
So w= hc/E = 6.6262*10^-34*3*10^8/1.563*10^-18=1.272*鈥?= 127.2nmsmart dmv nc
how would i do this?
thank you!What is the longest wavelength of radiation that possesses the necessary energy to break the bond?
I calculate the energy by molecule dividing energy by mole by Avogadro's number (6.022*10^23)
941kJ=9.41*10^5J
so energy by molecule
E= 9.41*10^5/6.022*10^23=1.563*10^-18J
I calculate the wavelength (w) given by E=hc/w
So w= hc/E = 6.6262*10^-34*3*10^8/1.563*10^-18=1.272*鈥?= 127.2nm
Radiation: Can a postcard hold radiation and if so what would the effects be?
I'm writing a short story and I had the idea of someone sending a postcard from an area with high radioactivity. Firstly, could the postcard hold the radiation or is paper not a substance that could hold radiation. Secondly, what medical effects would the postcard have on the receiver?Radiation: Can a postcard hold radiation and if so what would the effects be?
only a small amount, and that would be due to some elements in the cardboard that become transmuted and made radioactive from the exposure. Probably too low to be measured, but it depends on the exposure and on the materials involved. Other possibility is radioactive dust could adhere to the surface, but that would tend to rub off in transit.
That is the only way anything becomes radioactive, there is no such thing as "holding radiation".
Oh, exceptions: a person or animal could inhale or ingest radioactive material, or your skin or clothes could become contaminated with radioactive dust.
.
only a small amount, and that would be due to some elements in the cardboard that become transmuted and made radioactive from the exposure. Probably too low to be measured, but it depends on the exposure and on the materials involved. Other possibility is radioactive dust could adhere to the surface, but that would tend to rub off in transit.
That is the only way anything becomes radioactive, there is no such thing as "holding radiation".
Oh, exceptions: a person or animal could inhale or ingest radioactive material, or your skin or clothes could become contaminated with radioactive dust.
.
What is the source of the radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum?
For my Enriched Science class I am supposed to find what the source is of the radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum. A lot of different websites say different things. Some say natural sources, some say the sun, etc. Can you please help me? I will give best answer.
Oh and I am not like..."cheating" or whatever on my homework, the sheet is supposed to be filled out by going online.What is the source of the radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum?
There are many sources of EM radiation, both natural and man-made. In nature EM radiation is emitted by nuclear reactions in stars, but also by thermal radiation (heat radiating off of planets and other matter) and a number of other astronmical and physical phenomena. We use EM radiation for communication, measurement, imaging, cooking, and numerous other tasks.
Oh and I am not like..."cheating" or whatever on my homework, the sheet is supposed to be filled out by going online.What is the source of the radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum?
There are many sources of EM radiation, both natural and man-made. In nature EM radiation is emitted by nuclear reactions in stars, but also by thermal radiation (heat radiating off of planets and other matter) and a number of other astronmical and physical phenomena. We use EM radiation for communication, measurement, imaging, cooking, and numerous other tasks.
What is the curriculum for a radiation oncologist?
I want to major in radiation oncology, but i dont know exactly what school to go to. or better yet what classes i need to take. If anyone knows any good websites or information on how i can get started please help.What is the curriculum for a radiation oncologist?
A radiation oncologist is an MD so you have to go to medical school. I would think if a medical school offers radiation oncology as a specialty they will offer the courses as well.
So you can major major in anything you want. This is not my expertise, but if I am recall correctly colleges usually offer pre-med track so that you take the courses required for medical school application and prepare for the MCATS (Medical College Admission Test).
I knew quite a few people who majored in a related field like biology for medical school. Yet, there was some I in my department as an undergraduate who went to medical school with a BS/BA in physics.
If your school has a nuclear engineering, medical/health physics, radio-chemistry, or similar programs, there might be a basic radiation courses or radiation biology course for undergraduates as an elective for your major. It would show on your application that you are serious.
Check the course catalog of your college or talk to an academic advisor.
A radiation oncologist is an MD so you have to go to medical school. I would think if a medical school offers radiation oncology as a specialty they will offer the courses as well.
So you can major major in anything you want. This is not my expertise, but if I am recall correctly colleges usually offer pre-med track so that you take the courses required for medical school application and prepare for the MCATS (Medical College Admission Test).
I knew quite a few people who majored in a related field like biology for medical school. Yet, there was some I in my department as an undergraduate who went to medical school with a BS/BA in physics.
If your school has a nuclear engineering, medical/health physics, radio-chemistry, or similar programs, there might be a basic radiation courses or radiation biology course for undergraduates as an elective for your major. It would show on your application that you are serious.
Check the course catalog of your college or talk to an academic advisor.
What is the difference between light and electromagnetic radiation?
a. A light photon travels faster
b. They are the same thing. What we call visible light is electromagnetic radiation with a frequency that our eyes can detect.
c. A light photon travels slower
d. Electromagnetic radiation can interact with electromagnets while light cannotWhat is the difference between light and electromagnetic radiation?
The correct answer is b.What is the difference between light and electromagnetic radiation?
b) They are different names for the same thing. Or you can think of light as being a subset of electromagnetic radiation. Either way, there is no difference between them.
b. They are the same thing. What we call visible light is electromagnetic radiation with a frequency that our eyes can detect.
c. A light photon travels slower
d. Electromagnetic radiation can interact with electromagnets while light cannotWhat is the difference between light and electromagnetic radiation?
The correct answer is b.What is the difference between light and electromagnetic radiation?
b) They are different names for the same thing. Or you can think of light as being a subset of electromagnetic radiation. Either way, there is no difference between them.
What is the ionizing intensity of the radiation measured in roentgens ?
The rontgen or roentgen (R) is a unit of measurement of ionizing radiation in air, either X or gamma rays. It is named after the German physicist Wilhelm Rontgen. A roentgen is the amount of radiation required to liberate a pair of positive and negative charges from atoms of one electrostatic unit of charge in 1.00 cm3 of air at standard temperature and pressure. This corresponds to the generation of approximately 2.08 脳 109 ion pairs. A dose of 500 R in five hours is lethal for humans.
If X radiation ionizes 18.6 脳 1012 atoms per cemtimeter cubed, what is the ionizing intensity of the radiation measured in roentgens ?What is the ionizing intensity of the radiation measured in roentgens ?
No, I can not answer your question. I am simply wondering,why do you need to know this? You sound extremely intelligent, I fear no one who is not a member of Mensa could possibly help you. Good luck!caterers grimaldis
If X radiation ionizes 18.6 脳 1012 atoms per cemtimeter cubed, what is the ionizing intensity of the radiation measured in roentgens ?What is the ionizing intensity of the radiation measured in roentgens ?
No, I can not answer your question. I am simply wondering,why do you need to know this? You sound extremely intelligent, I fear no one who is not a member of Mensa could possibly help you. Good luck!
What is the difference between radiation and chemotherapy?
My aunt is having a small breast tumor positive with cancer cell and is having radiation instead of chemotherapy, why?What is the difference between radiation and chemotherapy?
Chemo affects your entire body, radiation can target very specific areas.
If they suspect the cancer has spread - they recommend chemo, otherwise they use surgery or radiation.What is the difference between radiation and chemotherapy?
Probably because after taking all the factors of your aunt's case into consideration the oncologist thought this was the best course of treatment.
Surgery, radiation and chemotherapy can be used singly or in any combination for different cancer types, stages and locations. The oncologist is in the best position to recommend what is most suitable for each individual based on a wide variety of factors.What is the difference between radiation and chemotherapy?
Chemo is delivered by IV whereas, radiation is a concentrated beam on the area of the tumor.
Chemo affects your entire body, radiation can target very specific areas.
If they suspect the cancer has spread - they recommend chemo, otherwise they use surgery or radiation.What is the difference between radiation and chemotherapy?
Probably because after taking all the factors of your aunt's case into consideration the oncologist thought this was the best course of treatment.
Surgery, radiation and chemotherapy can be used singly or in any combination for different cancer types, stages and locations. The oncologist is in the best position to recommend what is most suitable for each individual based on a wide variety of factors.What is the difference between radiation and chemotherapy?
Chemo is delivered by IV whereas, radiation is a concentrated beam on the area of the tumor.
How can i reduce the radiation emitted from electronics other than avoiding them totally?
i read that having certain plants in your house helps to absorb them but idk if this is true. what else will eliminate household radiation? thanks!How can i reduce the radiation emitted from electronics other than avoiding them totally?
An electromagnetic field (also called electromagnetic radiation) is a region in space through which energy passes that has been created by electrically charged particles. EMFs are produced by such things as power lines, electric appliances, radio waves, and microwaves.
It is not very likely that the average person has anything to worry about from power lines cell phones, microwave ovens, cordless phones, baby monitors, or Wi-Fi. Most of us do not get that close to power lines to be significantly affected by their EMFs. Our exposure to them, even if they are nearby, is not direct, up close, and constant. The energy emitted by cell phones, cordless phones, and baby monitors (10 milliwatts) is pretty weak. There is more EMF exposure from radio and TV, and the wiring in our homes and the electrical appliances we use, than from our cell phones or Wi-Fi. No one can avoid electromagnetic radiation. It is everywhere. We are constantly exposed to it from light, commercial radio and television transmissions, police 2-way transmissions, walkie-talkies, etc. Furthermore, "while electrical fields are easily screened, magnetic fields make their way unimpeded through most substances" (Pool, 1990). In fact, it is curious that while fear of EMFs is on the rise so is magnet therapy as a panacea and source of positive energy for the healthful-minded New Ager.
Purchase 1000s of lead blocks (2"x4"x9") from McMaster-Carr and use them to construct little blockhouses around all your home electronics. It will prevent your remotes from working, but you WILL be SAFE. You can also ask your dentist if she has a spare X-ray apron for sale. You can wear the apron instead of your conventional undergarments. Install huge sheets of grounded wire mesh to your walls, ceiling, and floors. Make sure you are grounded by duct taping some copper braid to your calf. Let the braid drag on the floor/ground. Plate your bathtub with a self adhesive copper foil.How can i reduce the radiation emitted from electronics other than avoiding them totally?
Turn the electronics off.
I've never heard of such plants but even if it was true, the same amount of radiation would still be emitted despite being 'absorbed' over time.
Paint your self with heavy led base paint.How can i reduce the radiation emitted from electronics other than avoiding them totally?
for help ; open the second %26amp; fifth link on: www.green-living-info.co.cc
An electromagnetic field (also called electromagnetic radiation) is a region in space through which energy passes that has been created by electrically charged particles. EMFs are produced by such things as power lines, electric appliances, radio waves, and microwaves.
It is not very likely that the average person has anything to worry about from power lines cell phones, microwave ovens, cordless phones, baby monitors, or Wi-Fi. Most of us do not get that close to power lines to be significantly affected by their EMFs. Our exposure to them, even if they are nearby, is not direct, up close, and constant. The energy emitted by cell phones, cordless phones, and baby monitors (10 milliwatts) is pretty weak. There is more EMF exposure from radio and TV, and the wiring in our homes and the electrical appliances we use, than from our cell phones or Wi-Fi. No one can avoid electromagnetic radiation. It is everywhere. We are constantly exposed to it from light, commercial radio and television transmissions, police 2-way transmissions, walkie-talkies, etc. Furthermore, "while electrical fields are easily screened, magnetic fields make their way unimpeded through most substances" (Pool, 1990). In fact, it is curious that while fear of EMFs is on the rise so is magnet therapy as a panacea and source of positive energy for the healthful-minded New Ager.
Purchase 1000s of lead blocks (2"x4"x9") from McMaster-Carr and use them to construct little blockhouses around all your home electronics. It will prevent your remotes from working, but you WILL be SAFE. You can also ask your dentist if she has a spare X-ray apron for sale. You can wear the apron instead of your conventional undergarments. Install huge sheets of grounded wire mesh to your walls, ceiling, and floors. Make sure you are grounded by duct taping some copper braid to your calf. Let the braid drag on the floor/ground. Plate your bathtub with a self adhesive copper foil.How can i reduce the radiation emitted from electronics other than avoiding them totally?
Turn the electronics off.
I've never heard of such plants but even if it was true, the same amount of radiation would still be emitted despite being 'absorbed' over time.
Paint your self with heavy led base paint.How can i reduce the radiation emitted from electronics other than avoiding them totally?
for help ; open the second %26amp; fifth link on: www.green-living-info.co.cc
What is the difference between Radiation and Radioactive decay?
First off, I'm confused about what radiation even is because many sites make it so confusing. So what is it? Also how is it different from radioactive decay?What is the difference between Radiation and Radioactive decay?
radiation is the name of the type of energy that can travel through a vacuum; radiation is also used to refer to the process of producing this kind of energy
radioactive decay is a process in which a nucleus emits either a particle (an alpha or beta particle) or radiation (a gamma ray which is a high energy form of electromagnetic radiation)
hope this helps clarify
radiation is the name of the type of energy that can travel through a vacuum; radiation is also used to refer to the process of producing this kind of energy
radioactive decay is a process in which a nucleus emits either a particle (an alpha or beta particle) or radiation (a gamma ray which is a high energy form of electromagnetic radiation)
hope this helps clarify
What is the history of radiation detectors?
Have to do a lecture on the progress radiation (x-ray) detectors have made? What and when was the first one invented? Having a hard time finding the right info online.What is the history of radiation detectors?
http://www.orau.org/ptp/museumdirectory.鈥?/a>
go to this link. it has one of the finest museums on-line dealing with the detection of radiation...and other neat stuffWhat is the history of radiation detectors?
radiation detectors--
A transition radiation detector (TRD) is a particle detector utilizing the 纬-dependent threshold of transition radiation in a stratified material. It contains many layers of materials with different indices of refraction. At each interface between materials, the probability of transition radiation increases with the relativistic gamma factor. Thus particles with large 纬 give off many photons, and small 纬 give off few. For a given energy, this allows a discrimination between a lighter particle (which has a high 纬 and therefore radiates) and a heavier particle (which has a low 纬 and radiates much less).What is the history of radiation detectors?
I have written a book on the history of radiation and protection. I will give you permission to use citations from it. Hope it helps. It is in Word format. Let me know if you need it in RTF.
Best of luck,
Ellsworth Weaver
X-rays are electromagnetic waves of short wavelength, capable of penetrating some thickness of matter. Medical x-rays are produced by letting a stream of fast electrons come to a sudden stop at a metal plate; it is believed that X-rays emitted by the Sun or stars also come from fast electrons. Both light and radio waves belong to the electromagnetic spectrum, the range containing all different electromagnetic waves. Over the years scientists and engineers have created EM waves of other frequencies--microwaves and various IR bands whose waves are longer than those of visible light (between radio and the visible), and UV, EUV, X-rays and g-rays (gamma rays) with shorter wavelengths. The electromagnetic nature of x-rays became evident when it was found that crystals bent their path in the same way as gratings bent visible light: the orderly rows of atoms in the crystal acted like the grooves of a grating.
Left: Wilhelm R枚ntgen (Roentgen)
On 8 Nov, 1895, Wilhelm Conrad R枚ntgen (accidentally) discovered an image cast from his cathode ray generator, projected far beyond the possible range of the cathode rays (now known as an electron beam). Further investigation showed that the rays were generated at the point of contact of the cathode ray beam on the interior of the vacuum tube, that they were not deflected by magnetic fields, and they penetrated many kinds of matter.
Right: Mrs. R枚ntgen's hand, the first X-ray picture of the human body ever taken.
A week after his discovery, Rontgen took an X-ray photograph of his wife's hand which clearly revealed her wedding ring and her bones. The photograph electrified the general public and aroused great scientific interest in the new form of radiation. R枚ntgen named the new form of radiation X-radiation (X standing for "Unknown"). Hence the term X-rays (also referred as R枚ntgen rays, though this term is unusual outside of Germany).
The images produced by X-rays are due to the different absorption rates of different tissues. Calcium in bones absorbs X-rays the most, so bones look white on a film recording of the X-ray image , called a radiograph. Fat and other soft tissues absorb less, and look gray. Air absorbs the least, so lungs look black on a radiograph.
Some information and all photos courtesy of NASA
Discovery of the X-Ray
An historical overview of the discovery of the X-Ray.
Original patent drawing of the first CAT-scan
Robert S. Ledley - CAT-Scans
Diagnostic X-Ray Systems - CAT-Scans
Robert S. Ledley was granted patent #3,922,552 on November 25th in 1975 for a "diagnostic X-ray systems" also known as CAT-Scans.
A computed tomography scan (CAT-scan) uses X-rays to create images of the body. However a radiograph (x-ray) and a CAT-scan show different types of information. An x-ray is a two-dimensional picture and a CAT-scan is three-dimensional. By imaging and looking at several three-dimensional slices of a body (like slices of bread) a doctor could not only tell if a tumor is present, but roughly how deep it is in the body. These slices are no less than 3-5 mm apart. The newer spiral (also called helical) CAT-scan takes continuous pictures of the body in a spiral motion, so that there are no gaps in the pictures collected.
A CAT-scan can be three dimensional because the information about how much of the X-rays are passing through a body is collected not just on a flat piece of film, but on a computer. The data from a CAT-scan can then be computer-enhanced to be more sensitive than a plain radiograph.
William D. Coolidge
X-Ray Tube
William D. Coolidge invented the X-ray tube - popularly called the 'Coolidge tube.'
William D. Coolidge
William D. Coolidge invented the X-ray tube - Invention Dimension.
Other inventions of Coolidge: invention of ductile tungsten
A breakthrough in tungsten applications was made by W. D. Coolidge in 1903. Coolidge succeeded in preparing a ductile tungsten wire by doping tungsten oxide before reduction. The resulting metal powder was pressed, sintered and forged to thin rods. Very thin wire was then drawn from these rods. This was the beginning of tungsten powder metallurgy, which was instrumental in the rapid development of the lamp industry - International Tungsten Industry Association (ITIA)
http://www.orau.org/ptp/museumdirectory.鈥?/a>
go to this link. it has one of the finest museums on-line dealing with the detection of radiation...and other neat stuffWhat is the history of radiation detectors?
radiation detectors--
A transition radiation detector (TRD) is a particle detector utilizing the 纬-dependent threshold of transition radiation in a stratified material. It contains many layers of materials with different indices of refraction. At each interface between materials, the probability of transition radiation increases with the relativistic gamma factor. Thus particles with large 纬 give off many photons, and small 纬 give off few. For a given energy, this allows a discrimination between a lighter particle (which has a high 纬 and therefore radiates) and a heavier particle (which has a low 纬 and radiates much less).What is the history of radiation detectors?
I have written a book on the history of radiation and protection. I will give you permission to use citations from it. Hope it helps. It is in Word format. Let me know if you need it in RTF.
Best of luck,
Ellsworth Weaver
X-rays are electromagnetic waves of short wavelength, capable of penetrating some thickness of matter. Medical x-rays are produced by letting a stream of fast electrons come to a sudden stop at a metal plate; it is believed that X-rays emitted by the Sun or stars also come from fast electrons. Both light and radio waves belong to the electromagnetic spectrum, the range containing all different electromagnetic waves. Over the years scientists and engineers have created EM waves of other frequencies--microwaves and various IR bands whose waves are longer than those of visible light (between radio and the visible), and UV, EUV, X-rays and g-rays (gamma rays) with shorter wavelengths. The electromagnetic nature of x-rays became evident when it was found that crystals bent their path in the same way as gratings bent visible light: the orderly rows of atoms in the crystal acted like the grooves of a grating.
Left: Wilhelm R枚ntgen (Roentgen)
On 8 Nov, 1895, Wilhelm Conrad R枚ntgen (accidentally) discovered an image cast from his cathode ray generator, projected far beyond the possible range of the cathode rays (now known as an electron beam). Further investigation showed that the rays were generated at the point of contact of the cathode ray beam on the interior of the vacuum tube, that they were not deflected by magnetic fields, and they penetrated many kinds of matter.
Right: Mrs. R枚ntgen's hand, the first X-ray picture of the human body ever taken.
A week after his discovery, Rontgen took an X-ray photograph of his wife's hand which clearly revealed her wedding ring and her bones. The photograph electrified the general public and aroused great scientific interest in the new form of radiation. R枚ntgen named the new form of radiation X-radiation (X standing for "Unknown"). Hence the term X-rays (also referred as R枚ntgen rays, though this term is unusual outside of Germany).
The images produced by X-rays are due to the different absorption rates of different tissues. Calcium in bones absorbs X-rays the most, so bones look white on a film recording of the X-ray image , called a radiograph. Fat and other soft tissues absorb less, and look gray. Air absorbs the least, so lungs look black on a radiograph.
Some information and all photos courtesy of NASA
Discovery of the X-Ray
An historical overview of the discovery of the X-Ray.
Original patent drawing of the first CAT-scan
Robert S. Ledley - CAT-Scans
Diagnostic X-Ray Systems - CAT-Scans
Robert S. Ledley was granted patent #3,922,552 on November 25th in 1975 for a "diagnostic X-ray systems" also known as CAT-Scans.
A computed tomography scan (CAT-scan) uses X-rays to create images of the body. However a radiograph (x-ray) and a CAT-scan show different types of information. An x-ray is a two-dimensional picture and a CAT-scan is three-dimensional. By imaging and looking at several three-dimensional slices of a body (like slices of bread) a doctor could not only tell if a tumor is present, but roughly how deep it is in the body. These slices are no less than 3-5 mm apart. The newer spiral (also called helical) CAT-scan takes continuous pictures of the body in a spiral motion, so that there are no gaps in the pictures collected.
A CAT-scan can be three dimensional because the information about how much of the X-rays are passing through a body is collected not just on a flat piece of film, but on a computer. The data from a CAT-scan can then be computer-enhanced to be more sensitive than a plain radiograph.
William D. Coolidge
X-Ray Tube
William D. Coolidge invented the X-ray tube - popularly called the 'Coolidge tube.'
William D. Coolidge
William D. Coolidge invented the X-ray tube - Invention Dimension.
Other inventions of Coolidge: invention of ductile tungsten
A breakthrough in tungsten applications was made by W. D. Coolidge in 1903. Coolidge succeeded in preparing a ductile tungsten wire by doping tungsten oxide before reduction. The resulting metal powder was pressed, sintered and forged to thin rods. Very thin wire was then drawn from these rods. This was the beginning of tungsten powder metallurgy, which was instrumental in the rapid development of the lamp industry - International Tungsten Industry Association (ITIA)
What are the effects of radiation-induced cell transformation?
I can't seem to find the answer, is cell transformation good or bad?
How about radiation induced ones to humans?What are the effects of radiation-induced cell transformation?
Radiation-induced cell transformation can cause changes or mutations within the genetic code in a cell.
Cell transformation is good when these transformations are calculated and if they are placed in desirable areas where the results are more or less predictable to be beneficial for the cell.
However, during radiation-induced cell transformation, the changes incurred on the genetic material is NOT controlled and NOT specific in places where there may be benefits from the mutations. For example, it can change the sequence of the gene to make essential amino acids or proteins in a cell. Even a single amino acid change in a gene sequence can cause a change in the structure and mechanism of the cell, and can even kill the cell if it doesn't adapt fast enough to fix these changes.
Radiation-induced cell transformation in humans, can not only cause malformations in offspring thru the gametes, but can also cause cancer if normal vegetative cells are affected.
However, this method is also used in chemotherapy, where the healthy cells are bombarded with chemicals that render it dying or dead, which signals the body to dispose of them immediately--like causing an overhaul of body cells just to get rid of the cancer.
wich wich dragon age 2 high
How about radiation induced ones to humans?What are the effects of radiation-induced cell transformation?
Radiation-induced cell transformation can cause changes or mutations within the genetic code in a cell.
Cell transformation is good when these transformations are calculated and if they are placed in desirable areas where the results are more or less predictable to be beneficial for the cell.
However, during radiation-induced cell transformation, the changes incurred on the genetic material is NOT controlled and NOT specific in places where there may be benefits from the mutations. For example, it can change the sequence of the gene to make essential amino acids or proteins in a cell. Even a single amino acid change in a gene sequence can cause a change in the structure and mechanism of the cell, and can even kill the cell if it doesn't adapt fast enough to fix these changes.
Radiation-induced cell transformation in humans, can not only cause malformations in offspring thru the gametes, but can also cause cancer if normal vegetative cells are affected.
However, this method is also used in chemotherapy, where the healthy cells are bombarded with chemicals that render it dying or dead, which signals the body to dispose of them immediately--like causing an overhaul of body cells just to get rid of the cancer.
What is the history of radiation detectors?
Have to do a lecture on the progress radiation (x-ray) detectors have made? What and when was the first one invented? Having a hard time finding the right info online.What is the history of radiation detectors?
http://www.orau.org/ptp/museumdirectory.鈥?/a>
go to this link. it has one of the finest museums on-line dealing with the detection of radiation...and other neat stuffWhat is the history of radiation detectors?
radiation detectors--
A transition radiation detector (TRD) is a particle detector utilizing the 纬-dependent threshold of transition radiation in a stratified material. It contains many layers of materials with different indices of refraction. At each interface between materials, the probability of transition radiation increases with the relativistic gamma factor. Thus particles with large 纬 give off many photons, and small 纬 give off few. For a given energy, this allows a discrimination between a lighter particle (which has a high 纬 and therefore radiates) and a heavier particle (which has a low 纬 and radiates much less).What is the history of radiation detectors?
I have written a book on the history of radiation and protection. I will give you permission to use citations from it. Hope it helps. It is in Word format. Let me know if you need it in RTF.
Best of luck,
Ellsworth Weaver
X-rays are electromagnetic waves of short wavelength, capable of penetrating some thickness of matter. Medical x-rays are produced by letting a stream of fast electrons come to a sudden stop at a metal plate; it is believed that X-rays emitted by the Sun or stars also come from fast electrons. Both light and radio waves belong to the electromagnetic spectrum, the range containing all different electromagnetic waves. Over the years scientists and engineers have created EM waves of other frequencies--microwaves and various IR bands whose waves are longer than those of visible light (between radio and the visible), and UV, EUV, X-rays and g-rays (gamma rays) with shorter wavelengths. The electromagnetic nature of x-rays became evident when it was found that crystals bent their path in the same way as gratings bent visible light: the orderly rows of atoms in the crystal acted like the grooves of a grating.
Left: Wilhelm R枚ntgen (Roentgen)
On 8 Nov, 1895, Wilhelm Conrad R枚ntgen (accidentally) discovered an image cast from his cathode ray generator, projected far beyond the possible range of the cathode rays (now known as an electron beam). Further investigation showed that the rays were generated at the point of contact of the cathode ray beam on the interior of the vacuum tube, that they were not deflected by magnetic fields, and they penetrated many kinds of matter.
Right: Mrs. R枚ntgen's hand, the first X-ray picture of the human body ever taken.
A week after his discovery, Rontgen took an X-ray photograph of his wife's hand which clearly revealed her wedding ring and her bones. The photograph electrified the general public and aroused great scientific interest in the new form of radiation. R枚ntgen named the new form of radiation X-radiation (X standing for "Unknown"). Hence the term X-rays (also referred as R枚ntgen rays, though this term is unusual outside of Germany).
The images produced by X-rays are due to the different absorption rates of different tissues. Calcium in bones absorbs X-rays the most, so bones look white on a film recording of the X-ray image , called a radiograph. Fat and other soft tissues absorb less, and look gray. Air absorbs the least, so lungs look black on a radiograph.
Some information and all photos courtesy of NASA
Discovery of the X-Ray
An historical overview of the discovery of the X-Ray.
Original patent drawing of the first CAT-scan
Robert S. Ledley - CAT-Scans
Diagnostic X-Ray Systems - CAT-Scans
Robert S. Ledley was granted patent #3,922,552 on November 25th in 1975 for a "diagnostic X-ray systems" also known as CAT-Scans.
A computed tomography scan (CAT-scan) uses X-rays to create images of the body. However a radiograph (x-ray) and a CAT-scan show different types of information. An x-ray is a two-dimensional picture and a CAT-scan is three-dimensional. By imaging and looking at several three-dimensional slices of a body (like slices of bread) a doctor could not only tell if a tumor is present, but roughly how deep it is in the body. These slices are no less than 3-5 mm apart. The newer spiral (also called helical) CAT-scan takes continuous pictures of the body in a spiral motion, so that there are no gaps in the pictures collected.
A CAT-scan can be three dimensional because the information about how much of the X-rays are passing through a body is collected not just on a flat piece of film, but on a computer. The data from a CAT-scan can then be computer-enhanced to be more sensitive than a plain radiograph.
William D. Coolidge
X-Ray Tube
William D. Coolidge invented the X-ray tube - popularly called the 'Coolidge tube.'
William D. Coolidge
William D. Coolidge invented the X-ray tube - Invention Dimension.
Other inventions of Coolidge: invention of ductile tungsten
A breakthrough in tungsten applications was made by W. D. Coolidge in 1903. Coolidge succeeded in preparing a ductile tungsten wire by doping tungsten oxide before reduction. The resulting metal powder was pressed, sintered and forged to thin rods. Very thin wire was then drawn from these rods. This was the beginning of tungsten powder metallurgy, which was instrumental in the rapid development of the lamp industry - International Tungsten Industry Association (ITIA)
http://www.orau.org/ptp/museumdirectory.鈥?/a>
go to this link. it has one of the finest museums on-line dealing with the detection of radiation...and other neat stuffWhat is the history of radiation detectors?
radiation detectors--
A transition radiation detector (TRD) is a particle detector utilizing the 纬-dependent threshold of transition radiation in a stratified material. It contains many layers of materials with different indices of refraction. At each interface between materials, the probability of transition radiation increases with the relativistic gamma factor. Thus particles with large 纬 give off many photons, and small 纬 give off few. For a given energy, this allows a discrimination between a lighter particle (which has a high 纬 and therefore radiates) and a heavier particle (which has a low 纬 and radiates much less).What is the history of radiation detectors?
I have written a book on the history of radiation and protection. I will give you permission to use citations from it. Hope it helps. It is in Word format. Let me know if you need it in RTF.
Best of luck,
Ellsworth Weaver
X-rays are electromagnetic waves of short wavelength, capable of penetrating some thickness of matter. Medical x-rays are produced by letting a stream of fast electrons come to a sudden stop at a metal plate; it is believed that X-rays emitted by the Sun or stars also come from fast electrons. Both light and radio waves belong to the electromagnetic spectrum, the range containing all different electromagnetic waves. Over the years scientists and engineers have created EM waves of other frequencies--microwaves and various IR bands whose waves are longer than those of visible light (between radio and the visible), and UV, EUV, X-rays and g-rays (gamma rays) with shorter wavelengths. The electromagnetic nature of x-rays became evident when it was found that crystals bent their path in the same way as gratings bent visible light: the orderly rows of atoms in the crystal acted like the grooves of a grating.
Left: Wilhelm R枚ntgen (Roentgen)
On 8 Nov, 1895, Wilhelm Conrad R枚ntgen (accidentally) discovered an image cast from his cathode ray generator, projected far beyond the possible range of the cathode rays (now known as an electron beam). Further investigation showed that the rays were generated at the point of contact of the cathode ray beam on the interior of the vacuum tube, that they were not deflected by magnetic fields, and they penetrated many kinds of matter.
Right: Mrs. R枚ntgen's hand, the first X-ray picture of the human body ever taken.
A week after his discovery, Rontgen took an X-ray photograph of his wife's hand which clearly revealed her wedding ring and her bones. The photograph electrified the general public and aroused great scientific interest in the new form of radiation. R枚ntgen named the new form of radiation X-radiation (X standing for "Unknown"). Hence the term X-rays (also referred as R枚ntgen rays, though this term is unusual outside of Germany).
The images produced by X-rays are due to the different absorption rates of different tissues. Calcium in bones absorbs X-rays the most, so bones look white on a film recording of the X-ray image , called a radiograph. Fat and other soft tissues absorb less, and look gray. Air absorbs the least, so lungs look black on a radiograph.
Some information and all photos courtesy of NASA
Discovery of the X-Ray
An historical overview of the discovery of the X-Ray.
Original patent drawing of the first CAT-scan
Robert S. Ledley - CAT-Scans
Diagnostic X-Ray Systems - CAT-Scans
Robert S. Ledley was granted patent #3,922,552 on November 25th in 1975 for a "diagnostic X-ray systems" also known as CAT-Scans.
A computed tomography scan (CAT-scan) uses X-rays to create images of the body. However a radiograph (x-ray) and a CAT-scan show different types of information. An x-ray is a two-dimensional picture and a CAT-scan is three-dimensional. By imaging and looking at several three-dimensional slices of a body (like slices of bread) a doctor could not only tell if a tumor is present, but roughly how deep it is in the body. These slices are no less than 3-5 mm apart. The newer spiral (also called helical) CAT-scan takes continuous pictures of the body in a spiral motion, so that there are no gaps in the pictures collected.
A CAT-scan can be three dimensional because the information about how much of the X-rays are passing through a body is collected not just on a flat piece of film, but on a computer. The data from a CAT-scan can then be computer-enhanced to be more sensitive than a plain radiograph.
William D. Coolidge
X-Ray Tube
William D. Coolidge invented the X-ray tube - popularly called the 'Coolidge tube.'
William D. Coolidge
William D. Coolidge invented the X-ray tube - Invention Dimension.
Other inventions of Coolidge: invention of ductile tungsten
A breakthrough in tungsten applications was made by W. D. Coolidge in 1903. Coolidge succeeded in preparing a ductile tungsten wire by doping tungsten oxide before reduction. The resulting metal powder was pressed, sintered and forged to thin rods. Very thin wire was then drawn from these rods. This was the beginning of tungsten powder metallurgy, which was instrumental in the rapid development of the lamp industry - International Tungsten Industry Association (ITIA)
What are the effects of radiation-induced cell transformation?
I can't seem to find the answer, is cell transformation good or bad?
How about radiation induced ones to humans?What are the effects of radiation-induced cell transformation?
Radiation-induced cell transformation can cause changes or mutations within the genetic code in a cell.
Cell transformation is good when these transformations are calculated and if they are placed in desirable areas where the results are more or less predictable to be beneficial for the cell.
However, during radiation-induced cell transformation, the changes incurred on the genetic material is NOT controlled and NOT specific in places where there may be benefits from the mutations. For example, it can change the sequence of the gene to make essential amino acids or proteins in a cell. Even a single amino acid change in a gene sequence can cause a change in the structure and mechanism of the cell, and can even kill the cell if it doesn't adapt fast enough to fix these changes.
Radiation-induced cell transformation in humans, can not only cause malformations in offspring thru the gametes, but can also cause cancer if normal vegetative cells are affected.
However, this method is also used in chemotherapy, where the healthy cells are bombarded with chemicals that render it dying or dead, which signals the body to dispose of them immediately--like causing an overhaul of body cells just to get rid of the cancer.
How about radiation induced ones to humans?What are the effects of radiation-induced cell transformation?
Radiation-induced cell transformation can cause changes or mutations within the genetic code in a cell.
Cell transformation is good when these transformations are calculated and if they are placed in desirable areas where the results are more or less predictable to be beneficial for the cell.
However, during radiation-induced cell transformation, the changes incurred on the genetic material is NOT controlled and NOT specific in places where there may be benefits from the mutations. For example, it can change the sequence of the gene to make essential amino acids or proteins in a cell. Even a single amino acid change in a gene sequence can cause a change in the structure and mechanism of the cell, and can even kill the cell if it doesn't adapt fast enough to fix these changes.
Radiation-induced cell transformation in humans, can not only cause malformations in offspring thru the gametes, but can also cause cancer if normal vegetative cells are affected.
However, this method is also used in chemotherapy, where the healthy cells are bombarded with chemicals that render it dying or dead, which signals the body to dispose of them immediately--like causing an overhaul of body cells just to get rid of the cancer.
What is the wavelength of radiation emitted?
An electron absorbs 4.784 x 10^-22 J of energy in order to move from ground state(n=1) to the n=2 level. When the electron dropped back down to ground state it emitted electromagnetic radiation.
What was the wavelength of radiation emitted?
What was the frequency of the radiation?
What type of waves were emitted?
I really confused on how to do this question! Any help is welcome,
Thanks!What is the wavelength of radiation emitted?
Use the Rydberg equation. It is stated as follows:
1/位 = Rh ((1/nb^2) - (1/ns^2)
So you're going from ground state (nb = 1) to one level higher (ns = 2). Put your numbers in..
= 1.097e7 (1/1 - 1/4)
= 8227500
Put that number under 1 to get wavelength.
1/8227500 = 1.22e-7 m or 122 nm
To convert to frequency, put 位 under c, the speed of light in a vacuum.
2.998e8 / 1.22e-7 = 2.46e15 Hz
Then to determine the types of waves emitted, look at the electromagnetic spectrum. Judging by the spectrum, UV waves were emitted (shorter 位 than visible but longer than x-ray).
What was the wavelength of radiation emitted?
What was the frequency of the radiation?
What type of waves were emitted?
I really confused on how to do this question! Any help is welcome,
Thanks!What is the wavelength of radiation emitted?
Use the Rydberg equation. It is stated as follows:
1/位 = Rh ((1/nb^2) - (1/ns^2)
So you're going from ground state (nb = 1) to one level higher (ns = 2). Put your numbers in..
= 1.097e7 (1/1 - 1/4)
= 8227500
Put that number under 1 to get wavelength.
1/8227500 = 1.22e-7 m or 122 nm
To convert to frequency, put 位 under c, the speed of light in a vacuum.
2.998e8 / 1.22e-7 = 2.46e15 Hz
Then to determine the types of waves emitted, look at the electromagnetic spectrum. Judging by the spectrum, UV waves were emitted (shorter 位 than visible but longer than x-ray).
What is the direction of the re-emitted radiation from an excited particle?
When light hits an electron it oscillates and re-emits radiations. What do we know about the direction of this remitted radiation.What is the direction of the re-emitted radiation from an excited particle?
To be completely honest, there is no certainty in the direction of the re-emitted photon. However, there exist theories to propose that although there is no way of predicting this, there is a range of directions within which we can find a probability function -- and thus a range of possible directions to look in. This probability range exists as a function of the properties of the incident light, as well as the energy level the excited electron exists within at the time of absorption and emission.What is the direction of the re-emitted radiation from an excited particle?
As per Wikipedia, "The direction distribution of emitted electrons peaks in the direction of polarization (the direction of the electric field) of the incident light, if it is linearly polarized".
Their diagram qualitatively shows the electron emission occurring at the angle equal to the angle of light incident to the norm, but the above statement is obviously more accurate.
This is the full article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectr鈥?/a>
To be completely honest, there is no certainty in the direction of the re-emitted photon. However, there exist theories to propose that although there is no way of predicting this, there is a range of directions within which we can find a probability function -- and thus a range of possible directions to look in. This probability range exists as a function of the properties of the incident light, as well as the energy level the excited electron exists within at the time of absorption and emission.What is the direction of the re-emitted radiation from an excited particle?
As per Wikipedia, "The direction distribution of emitted electrons peaks in the direction of polarization (the direction of the electric field) of the incident light, if it is linearly polarized".
Their diagram qualitatively shows the electron emission occurring at the angle equal to the angle of light incident to the norm, but the above statement is obviously more accurate.
This is the full article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectr鈥?/a>
What kind of heat does radiation from spent uranium create?
Also, is there a metal that can stop radiation completely. The reason being is because, I'm trying to come up with and idea to create energy. I basically have a concept idea that requires spent uranium to be encased in a small object that is virtually "indestructible" and can prevent rad poisoning. Does such a object exist?What kind of heat does radiation from spent uranium create?
Well, "virtually indestructible" is a tall order, but there are radioisotope generators used in satellites that are based on the same idea, though they don't use "spent uranium"What kind of heat does radiation from spent uranium create?
hot heatWhat kind of heat does radiation from spent uranium create?
Well the heat from the uranium would just be latent heat from radioactive decay dispersing into the surrounding environment. Technically nothing can FULLY contain heat forever which is the concept of a true isolated system. Radiation has 3 different forms. Alpha, Gamma, and Beta. While things can stop Alpha and Beta particles, its very difficult to stop Gamma.
An example of how a theory like yours works would be the core of the earth. Its heated from pressure and radioactive decay. So for it to happen, it kinda needs to be on a large scale =/textbook acura tsx
Well, "virtually indestructible" is a tall order, but there are radioisotope generators used in satellites that are based on the same idea, though they don't use "spent uranium"What kind of heat does radiation from spent uranium create?
hot heatWhat kind of heat does radiation from spent uranium create?
Well the heat from the uranium would just be latent heat from radioactive decay dispersing into the surrounding environment. Technically nothing can FULLY contain heat forever which is the concept of a true isolated system. Radiation has 3 different forms. Alpha, Gamma, and Beta. While things can stop Alpha and Beta particles, its very difficult to stop Gamma.
An example of how a theory like yours works would be the core of the earth. Its heated from pressure and radioactive decay. So for it to happen, it kinda needs to be on a large scale =/
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Why does the power of radiation emitted by a black body increase to the fourth power of temperature?
Why specifically the fourth power? What is the physics involved? Why if you double the temperature does that thermal radiation increase 16 fold? Does anyone know? References would be great too. Thanks!Why does the power of radiation emitted by a black body increase to the fourth power of temperature?
A not very physical explanation would be that this is just the result of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies.
Another similarly unphysical explanation is by dimensional analysis:
The power P of radiation emitted by a black body can only depend on the Boltzmann constant k, Planck's constant h, the speed of light, the temperature T and the surface area A (if there is a universal law that doesn't depend on the properties of certain particles etc.). As P also has to be linear in A, the only combination of these quantities with the correct dimension contains T to the fourth power.
The most physical explanation i know is to use the relation between radiation pressure P and the energy density of the electromagnetic field u
P = u/3
together with some thermodynamic Maxwell relations (see eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%8鈥?/a> ).
A not very physical explanation would be that this is just the result of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies.
Another similarly unphysical explanation is by dimensional analysis:
The power P of radiation emitted by a black body can only depend on the Boltzmann constant k, Planck's constant h, the speed of light, the temperature T and the surface area A (if there is a universal law that doesn't depend on the properties of certain particles etc.). As P also has to be linear in A, the only combination of these quantities with the correct dimension contains T to the fourth power.
The most physical explanation i know is to use the relation between radiation pressure P and the energy density of the electromagnetic field u
P = u/3
together with some thermodynamic Maxwell relations (see eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%8鈥?/a> ).
How much radiation does a TV transmitting antenna emmit?
In a radius of 5 km for example. And, does the amount of radiation go up in proportion to the amount of antennas? Lastly, what is the amount of radiation a human can take?How much radiation does a TV transmitting antenna emmit?
You are not confusing the radio wave radiation with "atomic" radiation are you? They are quite different with different risks.
There is no way to answer your question as it depends on how much radio energy is being fed to the antenna(s). for example, a micro transmitter can be just 5W, while a powerful TV transmission antenna can be over half a million Watts.
It gets more complicated unfortunately as you have to also take into consideration what frequencies are being transmitted, as some some are more readily absorbed by the human body than others.
So you would need to know all the antennas in a given area and their power outputs at each frequency transmitted. Your absorption would then depend on where you were stood and where and when you move.
You would also have to know id the antennas were isotropic or not (that is, do they emit the radio waves evenly in all directions, or are they directional?) Most microwave links for example are very highly directional, so emit almost no energy other than in the direction the antenna is pointed.
I am sorry, this is probably not helping you, but there is no easy answer I'm afraid. I can tell you that radio waves follow the "inverse square" law, so that means if you stood one metre (or yard) away from the antenna, then someone two metres away would get 1 / 2^2 = 1/4 of the radio waves you do. If they were three metres away, then it would 1 / 3^2 = 1/9 the radio power and so on.
All this assumes there are no obstacles in the way either, since they can block the radio waves or even reflect them.
Even the professionals when testing new transmitters are reduced to driving around the area while test transmissions are carried out, to measure the radio power in that area and see if is good enough and nothing is interfering with it!
The number of antennas does not really give a very good indication I'm afraid, since one really powerful one could be putting out more power than all the others combined, or they could all be really low power, or even be high power, but directed away from you.How much radiation does a TV transmitting antenna emmit?
its actually coming out of the screen , that why they say never sit to close to a tv...now-a-days TV 's have improved and the radiation is very minimal !!1How much radiation does a TV transmitting antenna emmit?
Redcorn no know... Me guessy it no too bad though or they would no be allow to do under law of land.. Good luck find better answer!
You are not confusing the radio wave radiation with "atomic" radiation are you? They are quite different with different risks.
There is no way to answer your question as it depends on how much radio energy is being fed to the antenna(s). for example, a micro transmitter can be just 5W, while a powerful TV transmission antenna can be over half a million Watts.
It gets more complicated unfortunately as you have to also take into consideration what frequencies are being transmitted, as some some are more readily absorbed by the human body than others.
So you would need to know all the antennas in a given area and their power outputs at each frequency transmitted. Your absorption would then depend on where you were stood and where and when you move.
You would also have to know id the antennas were isotropic or not (that is, do they emit the radio waves evenly in all directions, or are they directional?) Most microwave links for example are very highly directional, so emit almost no energy other than in the direction the antenna is pointed.
I am sorry, this is probably not helping you, but there is no easy answer I'm afraid. I can tell you that radio waves follow the "inverse square" law, so that means if you stood one metre (or yard) away from the antenna, then someone two metres away would get 1 / 2^2 = 1/4 of the radio waves you do. If they were three metres away, then it would 1 / 3^2 = 1/9 the radio power and so on.
All this assumes there are no obstacles in the way either, since they can block the radio waves or even reflect them.
Even the professionals when testing new transmitters are reduced to driving around the area while test transmissions are carried out, to measure the radio power in that area and see if is good enough and nothing is interfering with it!
The number of antennas does not really give a very good indication I'm afraid, since one really powerful one could be putting out more power than all the others combined, or they could all be really low power, or even be high power, but directed away from you.How much radiation does a TV transmitting antenna emmit?
its actually coming out of the screen , that why they say never sit to close to a tv...now-a-days TV 's have improved and the radiation is very minimal !!1How much radiation does a TV transmitting antenna emmit?
Redcorn no know... Me guessy it no too bad though or they would no be allow to do under law of land.. Good luck find better answer!
How much radiation would a cellphone need to emit in order to be a hazard to human health?
I was reading the manual off my Motorola Devour and it says the phones SAR levels are 0.45. I'm guessing this amount is low enough to not have to go into concern but now i'm wondering, what amount would be dangerous for human health?
How many times would I have to multiply my cellphones radiation level in order for it to cause adverse side effects?
Bonus question: Does a cellphone emit just as much radiation when it is not in use than when it is?How much radiation would a cellphone need to emit in order to be a hazard to human health?
We used antennas in the navy with 10's of thousands of watts. The cell phone uses less than a watt. There were danger areas around the antennas where you had to avoid when transmitting. That isn't ionizing radiation. It essentially is microwave which is just translated as heat. It would be like placing a 1 watt heating source near your head. The sun is about 1000 watts per square meter so the heat is so far below normal heat variation that only an alarmists could get excited about it. It is an idiotic campaign by lawyers and idiots. I'm surprised that alarmists aren't blaming them for warming or killing honey bees.
Here is a link to an article by Environmental Working Group that studied a number of cellphones and the SAR emissions from them.
http://www.ewg.org/cellphone-radiation
There are varying opinions as to the safety of Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) due to conflicting interests and who supplies the studies. The article at EWG.org does state that absorption rate is higher when the cell phone is held at the head versus anywhere else on the body. It also states that the rate of SAR emission is lower when not in use (on standby power).
There are a number of opinions and studies not only on cell phone radiation (microwave) but on cell tower as well. Links are provided below.
Hope this helps.How much radiation would a cellphone need to emit in order to be a hazard to human health?
First, you should recognize that the radiation that a cell phone emits is not the same as atomic radiation.
Not at all.
Next, different people are probably more, or less susceptible to the radiation.
What would be okay for some folks, would not be okay for others.
And, your phone does emit more radiation when it's being used than when it's not, but does emit some all the time that it's turned on.
Also, for myself, i just assume that radiation next to my head is going to be worse for me than just in my hand.
At worst, people can live without a hand.
The same is not true about a head.
note that i haven't answered your question yet.
because there is not a definitive answer.
this has been a subject for discussion for some years, and still there is not a definite answer.
if i only used my phone once in a while, once or twice a day, for not very long calls, i'd not be very concerned.
if i used my phone a lot, then i'd have a bluetooth, or something.
in fact, a wired headset is safest.
but it's more of a drag to use, unless you're sitting at a desk.
have a good day.
The frequency used by cell phones is in the microwave range. It isn't ionizing and the only danger with this wavelength is the heat it can generate (exactly how a microwave works).
Cell phones don't emit anywhere near enough to do anything.How much radiation would a cellphone need to emit in order to be a hazard to human health?
i watched a presentation by bryce wylde some environmentalist and he said that you can talk for a minute and a half without having effects to your brain but texting is fine. he has some sort of device on his phone so that he doesn't get as much radiation. sorry that's all i know
not sure
How many times would I have to multiply my cellphones radiation level in order for it to cause adverse side effects?
Bonus question: Does a cellphone emit just as much radiation when it is not in use than when it is?How much radiation would a cellphone need to emit in order to be a hazard to human health?
We used antennas in the navy with 10's of thousands of watts. The cell phone uses less than a watt. There were danger areas around the antennas where you had to avoid when transmitting. That isn't ionizing radiation. It essentially is microwave which is just translated as heat. It would be like placing a 1 watt heating source near your head. The sun is about 1000 watts per square meter so the heat is so far below normal heat variation that only an alarmists could get excited about it. It is an idiotic campaign by lawyers and idiots. I'm surprised that alarmists aren't blaming them for warming or killing honey bees.
Here is a link to an article by Environmental Working Group that studied a number of cellphones and the SAR emissions from them.
http://www.ewg.org/cellphone-radiation
There are varying opinions as to the safety of Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) due to conflicting interests and who supplies the studies. The article at EWG.org does state that absorption rate is higher when the cell phone is held at the head versus anywhere else on the body. It also states that the rate of SAR emission is lower when not in use (on standby power).
There are a number of opinions and studies not only on cell phone radiation (microwave) but on cell tower as well. Links are provided below.
Hope this helps.How much radiation would a cellphone need to emit in order to be a hazard to human health?
First, you should recognize that the radiation that a cell phone emits is not the same as atomic radiation.
Not at all.
Next, different people are probably more, or less susceptible to the radiation.
What would be okay for some folks, would not be okay for others.
And, your phone does emit more radiation when it's being used than when it's not, but does emit some all the time that it's turned on.
Also, for myself, i just assume that radiation next to my head is going to be worse for me than just in my hand.
At worst, people can live without a hand.
The same is not true about a head.
note that i haven't answered your question yet.
because there is not a definitive answer.
this has been a subject for discussion for some years, and still there is not a definite answer.
if i only used my phone once in a while, once or twice a day, for not very long calls, i'd not be very concerned.
if i used my phone a lot, then i'd have a bluetooth, or something.
in fact, a wired headset is safest.
but it's more of a drag to use, unless you're sitting at a desk.
have a good day.
The frequency used by cell phones is in the microwave range. It isn't ionizing and the only danger with this wavelength is the heat it can generate (exactly how a microwave works).
Cell phones don't emit anywhere near enough to do anything.How much radiation would a cellphone need to emit in order to be a hazard to human health?
i watched a presentation by bryce wylde some environmentalist and he said that you can talk for a minute and a half without having effects to your brain but texting is fine. he has some sort of device on his phone so that he doesn't get as much radiation. sorry that's all i know
not sure
What is the difference between rems and grays in radiation?
Which one is more commonly used to express medical radiation? Are there age/sex cohorts for radiation thresholds? IE If i'm 35 and 200 lbs are there higher limits to the amount of radiation that can be received? Looking for an algorithmWhat is the difference between rems and grays in radiation?
REM comes from the term "rontgen equivalent man". It's a unit of radiation dose equivalent. What that means is it's a way of converting radiation exposure from different radiation sources into one system. It is equal to the absorbed dose in rads x a weighting factor for the type of radiation. For most radiation people think of, the weighting factor is simply 1. So, basically 1 rad = 1 rem for all intents and purposes. Conversion from rads to gray: 1 rad = 1 centigray (cGy).
As far as radiation thresholds... there is no clear cut radiation threshold. Most of the standards are defined as what would cause 1 excess cancer death per 10,000 people. However, those thresholds are backwards extrapolated from data from Hiroshima survivors - and it's debatable whether it applies at low doses. You can read about radiation hormesis if you have more interest in that. I've put links at the bottom.
As far as weight goes - it doesn't affect how much ABSORBED radiation you can receive. However, lower energy radiation won't penetrate as far. So you would have to have a much higher skin dose to receive the same internal body dose. So that's hard to say to... but in general when discussing radiation induced toxicity and death, age and weight isn't a factor (unless you're talking about a child or fetus - they are more susceptible because their cells are dividing more rapidly).
Here is a website that lists radiation exposure limits in the US.
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/risk.h鈥?/a>
there's a table at the bottom with limits. It also discusses risk estimates and ways of discussing exposure and dose.What is the difference between rems and grays in radiation?
radiation absorbed dosage
SI unit
1 gray = absorption of 1 joule radiation energy per kg of weight
1 gray = 1 J/kg
conventional unit
1 rad = absorption of 100 ergs radiation energy per gram of weight
1 rad = 0.01 J/kg
1 rad = 0.01 gray
radiation dosage with biological effects Q
SI unit
sievert = (gray)(Q)
conventional unit
rem = (rad)(Q)
Q=1 for x-ray
Q=20 for alpha radiation
Q=10 for unknown radiation
example: 20kg body received x-rays 0.40w for 10sec
dose = 0.40*10/20 = 0.20w-s/kg = 0.20 J/kg
1 rad = 0.01 J/kg
dose = (rad)(Q)
dose = (0.20/0.01)(1) = 20 rem
REM comes from the term "rontgen equivalent man". It's a unit of radiation dose equivalent. What that means is it's a way of converting radiation exposure from different radiation sources into one system. It is equal to the absorbed dose in rads x a weighting factor for the type of radiation. For most radiation people think of, the weighting factor is simply 1. So, basically 1 rad = 1 rem for all intents and purposes. Conversion from rads to gray: 1 rad = 1 centigray (cGy).
As far as radiation thresholds... there is no clear cut radiation threshold. Most of the standards are defined as what would cause 1 excess cancer death per 10,000 people. However, those thresholds are backwards extrapolated from data from Hiroshima survivors - and it's debatable whether it applies at low doses. You can read about radiation hormesis if you have more interest in that. I've put links at the bottom.
As far as weight goes - it doesn't affect how much ABSORBED radiation you can receive. However, lower energy radiation won't penetrate as far. So you would have to have a much higher skin dose to receive the same internal body dose. So that's hard to say to... but in general when discussing radiation induced toxicity and death, age and weight isn't a factor (unless you're talking about a child or fetus - they are more susceptible because their cells are dividing more rapidly).
Here is a website that lists radiation exposure limits in the US.
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/risk.h鈥?/a>
there's a table at the bottom with limits. It also discusses risk estimates and ways of discussing exposure and dose.What is the difference between rems and grays in radiation?
radiation absorbed dosage
SI unit
1 gray = absorption of 1 joule radiation energy per kg of weight
1 gray = 1 J/kg
conventional unit
1 rad = absorption of 100 ergs radiation energy per gram of weight
1 rad = 0.01 J/kg
1 rad = 0.01 gray
radiation dosage with biological effects Q
SI unit
sievert = (gray)(Q)
conventional unit
rem = (rad)(Q)
Q=1 for x-ray
Q=20 for alpha radiation
Q=10 for unknown radiation
example: 20kg body received x-rays 0.40w for 10sec
dose = 0.40*10/20 = 0.20w-s/kg = 0.20 J/kg
1 rad = 0.01 J/kg
dose = (rad)(Q)
dose = (0.20/0.01)(1) = 20 rem
What type of electromagnetic radiation is released as the electrons return to the first energy level?
The four waves observed for the hydrogen spectrum all correspond to transitions from some higher level to the second energy level. What type of electromagnetic radiation is released as the electrons return to the first energy level? Explain.What type of electromagnetic radiation is released as the electrons return to the first energy level?
As the electrons go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level in the electron cloud, a decrease in the kinetic energy of the electron happens. That decrease in energy is given off in the form of a photon that has a certain wavelength based on how much energy is given off. So, it varies. Colors such as blue and purple will be associated with higher energy losses and red and orange are associated with lower energy losses based on the wavelength of those colors.What type of electromagnetic radiation is released as the electrons return to the first energy level?
All energy released is in the form of photons.What type of electromagnetic radiation is released as the electrons return to the first energy level?
As electrons return to the first energy level, light is released. The color and shade of the light depends on which energy level the electron has jumped from.
Energy releases in the form of photons. Colour depends on photon's frequency and wavelength.carolina skiff international postal service
As the electrons go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level in the electron cloud, a decrease in the kinetic energy of the electron happens. That decrease in energy is given off in the form of a photon that has a certain wavelength based on how much energy is given off. So, it varies. Colors such as blue and purple will be associated with higher energy losses and red and orange are associated with lower energy losses based on the wavelength of those colors.What type of electromagnetic radiation is released as the electrons return to the first energy level?
All energy released is in the form of photons.What type of electromagnetic radiation is released as the electrons return to the first energy level?
As electrons return to the first energy level, light is released. The color and shade of the light depends on which energy level the electron has jumped from.
Energy releases in the form of photons. Colour depends on photon's frequency and wavelength.
What are the biological effects of exposure to Beta Radiation?
Please tell me if the affects to the human body from exposure to Beta radiation is the same as Alpha or Gamma radiation. If it is not, then please describe the effects of Beta radiation.What are the biological effects of exposure to Beta Radiation?
The biological damage of all radiation is more or less proportional to the amount of energy absorbed per unit volume. but the amount absorbed along the path of the particle depends on the type and energy of the radiation For a given energy electrons deposit energy over a longer distance than alpha particles, but over a shorter distance than gamma rays.What are the biological effects of exposure to Beta Radiation?
death, terrible, horrible death.
The biological damage of all radiation is more or less proportional to the amount of energy absorbed per unit volume. but the amount absorbed along the path of the particle depends on the type and energy of the radiation For a given energy electrons deposit energy over a longer distance than alpha particles, but over a shorter distance than gamma rays.What are the biological effects of exposure to Beta Radiation?
death, terrible, horrible death.
How would you prepare oneself before undergoing radiation therapy?
I will be finishing my 6 chemo therapy and I am scheduled for my radiation therapy and I have no idea what I will have to prepare for myself. Someone suggested that I use suntan lotion before and after treatment . Is that appropriate ?How serious will my burn be ?Is it necessary to have 6 weeks radiation therapy ? What is the after effect if I do not finish it all.How would you prepare oneself before undergoing radiation therapy?
Your skin should not have anything applied before your treatment, not sun screen and if it is for breast cancer no deodorant.
You will have the treatment daily, so try to make it a time when you can go after your daily shower, then apply deodorant etc afterwards.
For the first few weeks, it will be tiring, but the burning sensation generally apears around lat week 3. This will get progressively worse, it is hard to keep emotionally focussed n fiishing the treatment. There are creams the treatment staff can provide that will help. Everyone responds differently, it may feel like a mild sunburn or you could loose several layers of skin (ouch!)
It is tempting not to finish, as it does get hard towards the end, BUT the burning will get worse for several days after your last treatment, so if you stop a few days short of the full treatment you are increasing your risk and still feeling worse!
About a week after your final treatment the side effects seem to subside (or do we just learn to adapt?) I still have scar tissue from the burns, 3 years later.
If you develope raw tissue from skin peeling, be very careful with what you use to treat this as you DO NOT want to risk an infection. I found that once the peeling stoped, a good quality body butter (gift from daughter) was the most soothing treatment of the healing skin.
By not finishing your treatment, you increase your risk of the cancer reccurring. So hang in there!!!
You should not use suntan lotion. Try to get treated as close to home as possible as you will likely be going everyday and it is tiring. You probably will not get treatment on your first appointment with the radiation oncologist. He or she will examine you, go over your history and answer all of your questions at that time. They will usually take your photo on that day and will have you lay on the table to do measurements for equipment placement. After this appointment you will know how to prepare.
Not everyone who gets radiation experiences burns, hopefully you be one of these people. These doctors are very interested in ANY changes or reactions you may have and will make adjustments or give prescriptions accordingly so tell them everything. They watch you very closely and will follow you years after your treatment.
They will sometimes give you a break in treatment if you are not tolerating it well, but they don鈥檛 like to do this as the timing and continuation of treatment gives you the best possible outcome. For this reason you should also compete your treatment.How would you prepare oneself before undergoing radiation therapy?
Don't put anything on your skin. They will tell you what you can put on your skin and give you samples. Some are non-presecription and others require a prescription. Try them out and decide which seems to do the best for the burn. Then let them know if you need a prescription.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?鈥?/a>
Healing be unto you and yours and me and mine
In Forgive Affirmed Spirit
~skahhhHow would you prepare oneself before undergoing radiation therapy?
You want to finish it all!!! Your skin likely will get burned. My wife used a gel that her radiation oncologist gave her to use. It seemed to help. Ask your oncologist for advise on burning.
The best of luck to you in your treatments. God bless.
You cannot wear suntan lotion or sunscreen during radiation. Any creams or lotions on your skin can make the effects worse - not better.
I had radiation 3 years ago following lumpectomy for breast cancer and can honestly tell you that it was pretty easy. I never got the "sunburn" effect that some get. I was concerned because I am very fair skinned and tend to burn easily in the sun, but I didn't burn with the radiation. The skin in the area did get a little darker during that time, but it went away within a few weeks of my last treatment. The worst side effect was fatigue. It just made me tired.
The radiation oncologist will give you some creams that you can use after treatment to help keep your skin hydrated and healing.
You will need to use very mild soaps with no fragrance in them during this time period and no deodorants if the radiation is around your underarm areas.
My radiation was for 7 weeks, 5 days a week.
I think you will actually find it physically much easier than chemo. The other difficult thing (other than the fatigue) is just getting into the routine of doing it every day.
you just have to show up for your appointment, do as many treatments as the doctor says that you need in order to get the full affect of the treatment
They do not want stuff on your skin before treatments. You do not need to do anything to prepare except show up on time for your appointment. After your first treatment, they will give you instructions on how to take care of your skin and the "burns" that can occur during radiation treatment. If you do not finish all of your treatment, you run the risk of allowing your cancer to return. Do everything they tell you to ensure the best possible outcome.
Your skin should not have anything applied before your treatment, not sun screen and if it is for breast cancer no deodorant.
You will have the treatment daily, so try to make it a time when you can go after your daily shower, then apply deodorant etc afterwards.
For the first few weeks, it will be tiring, but the burning sensation generally apears around lat week 3. This will get progressively worse, it is hard to keep emotionally focussed n fiishing the treatment. There are creams the treatment staff can provide that will help. Everyone responds differently, it may feel like a mild sunburn or you could loose several layers of skin (ouch!)
It is tempting not to finish, as it does get hard towards the end, BUT the burning will get worse for several days after your last treatment, so if you stop a few days short of the full treatment you are increasing your risk and still feeling worse!
About a week after your final treatment the side effects seem to subside (or do we just learn to adapt?) I still have scar tissue from the burns, 3 years later.
If you develope raw tissue from skin peeling, be very careful with what you use to treat this as you DO NOT want to risk an infection. I found that once the peeling stoped, a good quality body butter (gift from daughter) was the most soothing treatment of the healing skin.
By not finishing your treatment, you increase your risk of the cancer reccurring. So hang in there!!!
You should not use suntan lotion. Try to get treated as close to home as possible as you will likely be going everyday and it is tiring. You probably will not get treatment on your first appointment with the radiation oncologist. He or she will examine you, go over your history and answer all of your questions at that time. They will usually take your photo on that day and will have you lay on the table to do measurements for equipment placement. After this appointment you will know how to prepare.
Not everyone who gets radiation experiences burns, hopefully you be one of these people. These doctors are very interested in ANY changes or reactions you may have and will make adjustments or give prescriptions accordingly so tell them everything. They watch you very closely and will follow you years after your treatment.
They will sometimes give you a break in treatment if you are not tolerating it well, but they don鈥檛 like to do this as the timing and continuation of treatment gives you the best possible outcome. For this reason you should also compete your treatment.How would you prepare oneself before undergoing radiation therapy?
Don't put anything on your skin. They will tell you what you can put on your skin and give you samples. Some are non-presecription and others require a prescription. Try them out and decide which seems to do the best for the burn. Then let them know if you need a prescription.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?鈥?/a>
Healing be unto you and yours and me and mine
In Forgive Affirmed Spirit
~skahhhHow would you prepare oneself before undergoing radiation therapy?
You want to finish it all!!! Your skin likely will get burned. My wife used a gel that her radiation oncologist gave her to use. It seemed to help. Ask your oncologist for advise on burning.
The best of luck to you in your treatments. God bless.
You cannot wear suntan lotion or sunscreen during radiation. Any creams or lotions on your skin can make the effects worse - not better.
I had radiation 3 years ago following lumpectomy for breast cancer and can honestly tell you that it was pretty easy. I never got the "sunburn" effect that some get. I was concerned because I am very fair skinned and tend to burn easily in the sun, but I didn't burn with the radiation. The skin in the area did get a little darker during that time, but it went away within a few weeks of my last treatment. The worst side effect was fatigue. It just made me tired.
The radiation oncologist will give you some creams that you can use after treatment to help keep your skin hydrated and healing.
You will need to use very mild soaps with no fragrance in them during this time period and no deodorants if the radiation is around your underarm areas.
My radiation was for 7 weeks, 5 days a week.
I think you will actually find it physically much easier than chemo. The other difficult thing (other than the fatigue) is just getting into the routine of doing it every day.
you just have to show up for your appointment, do as many treatments as the doctor says that you need in order to get the full affect of the treatment
They do not want stuff on your skin before treatments. You do not need to do anything to prepare except show up on time for your appointment. After your first treatment, they will give you instructions on how to take care of your skin and the "burns" that can occur during radiation treatment. If you do not finish all of your treatment, you run the risk of allowing your cancer to return. Do everything they tell you to ensure the best possible outcome.
How bad is it when doctors use radiation as treatment for stage 4 colon cancer?
My best friend has stage 4 colon cancer. She's only 24 years old. She told me that they are going to start radiation, what does that mean? I read about how they do it, but how bad does it have to be before they do radiation?How bad is it when doctors use radiation as treatment for stage 4 colon cancer?
Just as the poster before me, they do radiation even for Stage 2 cancers. I have to get radiation for Stage 3B Breast Cancer I was officially diagnosed as cancer free but I have still have to go thrut he radiation as a safety measure. All Stage 4 cancer is bad but that does not mean that she can't beat it--people beat statistics all the time. Keep a positive attitude and my thoughts and prayers are with you and her and the family during this difficult time.How bad is it when doctors use radiation as treatment for stage 4 colon cancer?
It isn鈥檛 the fact that she is having radiation that makes it bad it鈥檚 the fact that it is a stage 4 colon cancer that makes it bad. Her prognosis is not good. I鈥檓 sorry.How bad is it when doctors use radiation as treatment for stage 4 colon cancer?
You said a mouth full there tampage. Stage 4 is pretty bad. Chemo and radiation would be used to shrink the tumours and hopefully buy more time. However people have beaten those long odds before. Your friend is young and strong and will fight this thing.
Just as the poster before me, they do radiation even for Stage 2 cancers. I have to get radiation for Stage 3B Breast Cancer I was officially diagnosed as cancer free but I have still have to go thrut he radiation as a safety measure. All Stage 4 cancer is bad but that does not mean that she can't beat it--people beat statistics all the time. Keep a positive attitude and my thoughts and prayers are with you and her and the family during this difficult time.How bad is it when doctors use radiation as treatment for stage 4 colon cancer?
It isn鈥檛 the fact that she is having radiation that makes it bad it鈥檚 the fact that it is a stage 4 colon cancer that makes it bad. Her prognosis is not good. I鈥檓 sorry.How bad is it when doctors use radiation as treatment for stage 4 colon cancer?
You said a mouth full there tampage. Stage 4 is pretty bad. Chemo and radiation would be used to shrink the tumours and hopefully buy more time. However people have beaten those long odds before. Your friend is young and strong and will fight this thing.
On radiation, is it better for a pregnant woman to fly during day or night? What shield product to use?
Some said there is no difference during day or night, but some others said during night the earth' Magnetosphere is taller. Does that appear more protection during the night?
Some said lead is not effective to shield cosmic radiation, use plastic (polythene?) instead. Any specific brand that is economical and trustworthy?
Some said radiation during flights is minimal, not to worry, but data showed the dosage is over 100 times stronger than on the ground. If I have to eat 100 times more food during a meal I'd suffer, why wouldn't the same health effect occur here? If you try to have a whole year's sun light on your skin during one day, see what happens. So I don't buy the yearly dosage theory.On radiation, is it better for a pregnant woman to fly during day or night? What shield product to use?
Anyone who is trying to sell you something to protect you from "increased radiation" on an airline flight is a scam artist of the lowest caliber. Look at it this way:
On a transatlantic flight you pick up about 4.5 millirem. This is an utterly insignificant compared to other sources you might be dealing with, just fine, all the time (and in fact low doses of radiation have been shown to not have adverse effects, it's high doseages you need to worry about).
Live in Denver? 55 millirem a year (high altitude), plus another 90 millirem a year from the rocks around the plateau.
Live on the Pacific coast at sea level? 28 millirem a year, plus 46 from the ocean.
Porcelain crowns on your teeth? 0.07 millirem.
Watch TV, use a computer, or other moniter? 1 millirem each.
Share a bed with someone? 1 millirem.
wear a digital watch? 0.06 millirem.
Have a smoke detector? 0.008 millirem each.
Just fly, the radiation dosage you get while airborn is not significantly different than what you get on the ground.
a plane will stop most radiation.. fly any time when the rates are cheaper..On radiation, is it better for a pregnant woman to fly during day or night? What shield product to use?
Really, don't worry about it. Wearing a lead vest to fly on an airplane is one step below putting a metal bowl on your head to block out the alien mind control. It's just not something you need to worry about. Yes, the radiation exposure on a plane is higher than on the ground, but it's still so far below the dose that could even begin to possibly be harmful even to a fetus that you just don't need to worry about it. It's far below the dose that hospitals consider safe for pregnant employees to be exposed to, and there's never been any problems with it. Radiation exposure has been studied quite extensively over the years, and the dose that is potentially harmful to both an adult and a fetus has been determined quite precisely, and the dose you receive on an airplane is about 1,000,000th of the level at which it might start to be harmful.
PS. I don't know where you heard that lead is not effective at shielding radiation, but I assure you it is.
some people (like flight crews) fly nearly every day for years on end
if radiation was a significant danger during airplane flights, it would certainly have shown up in these people
I don't know if radiation during a flight is 100 times normal but if it is, that is not necessarily a problem, because it is 100 time nearly nothing
if you had to eat 100 times more whale brains than you normally eat, would that be a problem? no, because you normally eat no whale brains and 100 times is still nothing
my wife flew on commercial airlines one or two times on one or two of her pregnancies, no big deal
relax, enjoy the flightOn radiation, is it better for a pregnant woman to fly during day or night? What shield product to use?
In my opinion, you are worrying too much. The radiation you get on the ground should not be compared to eating a full meal. It would be more like eating a single granule of sugar. 100 times that is only 100 granules of sugar; hardly enough to even taste and way way less than a teaspoon.
Airline flight crews spend way, way more time flying than you do, but have you heard of them having health problems? I haven't. Have you heard of people who live their whole lives in high altitude places, like Tibet, having increased rick of cancer? I haven't. The dose may be higher than at sea level but it is still no big deal.
As long as you're not a witch, and fly by aeroplane, you get almost no sun - the portholes on airplanes are small, and have a solid shutter.
If you really want to avoid all radiation, fly at night, do not use microwave or cellphone, do not watch TV and only use flat (LCD) displays on computer.
Some said lead is not effective to shield cosmic radiation, use plastic (polythene?) instead. Any specific brand that is economical and trustworthy?
Some said radiation during flights is minimal, not to worry, but data showed the dosage is over 100 times stronger than on the ground. If I have to eat 100 times more food during a meal I'd suffer, why wouldn't the same health effect occur here? If you try to have a whole year's sun light on your skin during one day, see what happens. So I don't buy the yearly dosage theory.On radiation, is it better for a pregnant woman to fly during day or night? What shield product to use?
Anyone who is trying to sell you something to protect you from "increased radiation" on an airline flight is a scam artist of the lowest caliber. Look at it this way:
On a transatlantic flight you pick up about 4.5 millirem. This is an utterly insignificant compared to other sources you might be dealing with, just fine, all the time (and in fact low doses of radiation have been shown to not have adverse effects, it's high doseages you need to worry about).
Live in Denver? 55 millirem a year (high altitude), plus another 90 millirem a year from the rocks around the plateau.
Live on the Pacific coast at sea level? 28 millirem a year, plus 46 from the ocean.
Porcelain crowns on your teeth? 0.07 millirem.
Watch TV, use a computer, or other moniter? 1 millirem each.
Share a bed with someone? 1 millirem.
wear a digital watch? 0.06 millirem.
Have a smoke detector? 0.008 millirem each.
Just fly, the radiation dosage you get while airborn is not significantly different than what you get on the ground.
a plane will stop most radiation.. fly any time when the rates are cheaper..On radiation, is it better for a pregnant woman to fly during day or night? What shield product to use?
Really, don't worry about it. Wearing a lead vest to fly on an airplane is one step below putting a metal bowl on your head to block out the alien mind control. It's just not something you need to worry about. Yes, the radiation exposure on a plane is higher than on the ground, but it's still so far below the dose that could even begin to possibly be harmful even to a fetus that you just don't need to worry about it. It's far below the dose that hospitals consider safe for pregnant employees to be exposed to, and there's never been any problems with it. Radiation exposure has been studied quite extensively over the years, and the dose that is potentially harmful to both an adult and a fetus has been determined quite precisely, and the dose you receive on an airplane is about 1,000,000th of the level at which it might start to be harmful.
PS. I don't know where you heard that lead is not effective at shielding radiation, but I assure you it is.
some people (like flight crews) fly nearly every day for years on end
if radiation was a significant danger during airplane flights, it would certainly have shown up in these people
I don't know if radiation during a flight is 100 times normal but if it is, that is not necessarily a problem, because it is 100 time nearly nothing
if you had to eat 100 times more whale brains than you normally eat, would that be a problem? no, because you normally eat no whale brains and 100 times is still nothing
my wife flew on commercial airlines one or two times on one or two of her pregnancies, no big deal
relax, enjoy the flightOn radiation, is it better for a pregnant woman to fly during day or night? What shield product to use?
In my opinion, you are worrying too much. The radiation you get on the ground should not be compared to eating a full meal. It would be more like eating a single granule of sugar. 100 times that is only 100 granules of sugar; hardly enough to even taste and way way less than a teaspoon.
Airline flight crews spend way, way more time flying than you do, but have you heard of them having health problems? I haven't. Have you heard of people who live their whole lives in high altitude places, like Tibet, having increased rick of cancer? I haven't. The dose may be higher than at sea level but it is still no big deal.
As long as you're not a witch, and fly by aeroplane, you get almost no sun - the portholes on airplanes are small, and have a solid shutter.
If you really want to avoid all radiation, fly at night, do not use microwave or cellphone, do not watch TV and only use flat (LCD) displays on computer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)