A microwave oven operates at 2.90 GHz . What is the wavelength of the radiation produced by this appliance?
(Express the wavelength numerically in nanometers.)What is the wavelength of the radiation produced by this appliance?
c = frequency * wavelength
3.00 * 10^8 m/s = (2.90*10^9 Hz) * (wavelength)
wavelength = 0.103 meters
0.103 meters * (1.00*10^9 nanometers / 1 meter) = 1.03*10^8 nanometers is the answer.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
What is the probability of the radiation arrive in the American Continent?
What is the probability of the radiation arrive in Americas, specially in south countries like Argentina and Brazil?
Here, in Brazil, we will also have a great numbers of japonese descendents that will return back from japan. I think that many of them will have problem of radiactive contamination. Brazilian descendents living in Japan are arround 250,000.What is the probability of the radiation arrive in the American Continent?
Well, I'm not so worried about the nuclear mushroom cloud affecting me as I am about it affecting the animals in Japan, and I fully expect to see a ten-story-tall lizard stomping all over Tokyo any day now.
I mean, think about it, isn't this EXACTLY how all those old black %26amp; white monster movies start, with a mysterious release of nuclear radiation and then, next thing you know, giant dinosaurs and giant moths are crushing Tokyo with their huge feet and crushing people and cars like little toys... well, isn't it?
Yuh, huh, you KNOW I'm right!! (See links, below.)
http://blog.wordtothewise.com/wp-content鈥?/a>
http://images1.fanpop.com/images/image_u鈥?/a>
Here, in Brazil, we will also have a great numbers of japonese descendents that will return back from japan. I think that many of them will have problem of radiactive contamination. Brazilian descendents living in Japan are arround 250,000.What is the probability of the radiation arrive in the American Continent?
Well, I'm not so worried about the nuclear mushroom cloud affecting me as I am about it affecting the animals in Japan, and I fully expect to see a ten-story-tall lizard stomping all over Tokyo any day now.
I mean, think about it, isn't this EXACTLY how all those old black %26amp; white monster movies start, with a mysterious release of nuclear radiation and then, next thing you know, giant dinosaurs and giant moths are crushing Tokyo with their huge feet and crushing people and cars like little toys... well, isn't it?
Yuh, huh, you KNOW I'm right!! (See links, below.)
http://blog.wordtothewise.com/wp-content鈥?/a>
http://images1.fanpop.com/images/image_u鈥?/a>
What is the frequency of electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength of 1.51 x 10-8 meters?
What is the frequency of electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength of 1.51 x 10-8 meters?What is the frequency of electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength of 1.51 x 10-8 meters?
use
speed=wavelength*frequency
frequency=3*10^8/1.51*10^-8
=1.99*10^16 HzWhat is the frequency of electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength of 1.51 x 10-8 meters?
speed of light/wavelength=frequency
Speed of light is about 3*10^8 m/s, so frequency here would be about 2*10^16 s^-1.What is the frequency of electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength of 1.51 x 10-8 meters?
divide the wavelength by the speed of light.
19.853805165562916 PHz
From the nastier end of the UV spectrum.
use
speed=wavelength*frequency
frequency=3*10^8/1.51*10^-8
=1.99*10^16 HzWhat is the frequency of electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength of 1.51 x 10-8 meters?
speed of light/wavelength=frequency
Speed of light is about 3*10^8 m/s, so frequency here would be about 2*10^16 s^-1.What is the frequency of electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength of 1.51 x 10-8 meters?
divide the wavelength by the speed of light.
19.853805165562916 PHz
From the nastier end of the UV spectrum.
What exactly is radiation, and how can it affect you?
I know what radiation is, waves like Gamma and beta, energy etc., but what exactly is it? (such as the radiation given off by Uranium, etc.) and how would it affect you if you were in a situation like the search and rescue team at the Sl-1 accident in Idaho in 1961? just super curious =DWhat exactly is radiation, and how can it affect you?
Radiation is found in 3 forms
Alpha: Helium atoms. The most dangerous, but easiest to stop. A paper stops most A-particles.
Beta: Electrons. The middle. Somewhat dangerous but also stopped quite simply. A wooden board is enough.
Gamma: Pure energy. Very difficult to stop, but also not very harmful unless in extreme amounts.
The thing that Alpha and Beta rays do is that they go into your body and shatter your DNA structure, leading to extreme amounts Cancer or/and burn damage.
I do not know the exact effect of Gammarays on the body.
Radiation is the movement of heat energy from the sun. It is a process where the radiation from the sun (infra-red rays) is absorbed or reflected by objects.
There are 3 ways in which heat can move: conduction, convection and radiation.
No one is immune to radiation. In the Japanese Tsunami, it destroyed nuclear power plants that gave off radiation. People living in a 20km radius of this area had to move because they could get radiation poisoning. This could result in death after a few hours of being poisoned. Symptoms include vomiting, dizziness, weakness and other signs of losing life.What exactly is radiation, and how can it affect you?
" In general, radiation is a process where energy emitted by one body travels in a straight line through a medium or through space. Radiation comes from the sun, nuclear reactors, microwave ovens, radio antennas, X-ray machines, and power lines, to name a few. "
For more of an explanation read the rest of this web page.....
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles鈥?/a>
Note in the top right of the web page, there is also a click-on to read about the effects
radiation can have on humans.
i'm not sure to it's validity, but from what i can understand, radiation occurs as the nucleus of and atom becomes unstable. As it does it starts losing particles of harmful energy which is what we call radiation.What exactly is radiation, and how can it affect you?
Gamma radiation can cause genetic mutations which lead to cancer.
Radiation is found in 3 forms
Alpha: Helium atoms. The most dangerous, but easiest to stop. A paper stops most A-particles.
Beta: Electrons. The middle. Somewhat dangerous but also stopped quite simply. A wooden board is enough.
Gamma: Pure energy. Very difficult to stop, but also not very harmful unless in extreme amounts.
The thing that Alpha and Beta rays do is that they go into your body and shatter your DNA structure, leading to extreme amounts Cancer or/and burn damage.
I do not know the exact effect of Gammarays on the body.
Radiation is the movement of heat energy from the sun. It is a process where the radiation from the sun (infra-red rays) is absorbed or reflected by objects.
There are 3 ways in which heat can move: conduction, convection and radiation.
No one is immune to radiation. In the Japanese Tsunami, it destroyed nuclear power plants that gave off radiation. People living in a 20km radius of this area had to move because they could get radiation poisoning. This could result in death after a few hours of being poisoned. Symptoms include vomiting, dizziness, weakness and other signs of losing life.What exactly is radiation, and how can it affect you?
" In general, radiation is a process where energy emitted by one body travels in a straight line through a medium or through space. Radiation comes from the sun, nuclear reactors, microwave ovens, radio antennas, X-ray machines, and power lines, to name a few. "
For more of an explanation read the rest of this web page.....
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles鈥?/a>
Note in the top right of the web page, there is also a click-on to read about the effects
radiation can have on humans.
i'm not sure to it's validity, but from what i can understand, radiation occurs as the nucleus of and atom becomes unstable. As it does it starts losing particles of harmful energy which is what we call radiation.What exactly is radiation, and how can it affect you?
Gamma radiation can cause genetic mutations which lead to cancer.
What is the frequency of this radiation?
An argon ion laser emits light at 489nm. What is the frequency of this radiation? Is the emission in the visible spectrum? If yes, what color is it?What is the frequency of this radiation?
frequency = c/wavelength
here c is the speed of light in vacuum, a constant (3*10^8 m/s). Now, don't forget to convert nm to m before you do the calculations! Also, remember that the SI unit of frequency is Hz (1/s).What is the frequency of this radiation?
Check the following web pages and find out yourself:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/scienc鈥?/a>
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/scienc鈥?/a>north beach plantation college books
frequency = c/wavelength
here c is the speed of light in vacuum, a constant (3*10^8 m/s). Now, don't forget to convert nm to m before you do the calculations! Also, remember that the SI unit of frequency is Hz (1/s).What is the frequency of this radiation?
Check the following web pages and find out yourself:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/scienc鈥?/a>
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/scienc鈥?/a>
What is the intensity of EM radiation in this region?
Two incoherent EM waves of intensities 9 and 13 travel in the same direction in the same region of space. What is the intensity of EM radiation in this region?
I tried 44 and then 0.37 and they were wrong, please help.
*I give 10 points to best answers so try answering my unresolved questions!What is the intensity of EM radiation in this region?
Because the waves are incoherent, the intensities simply add (being incoherent, they cannot interfere), so the time-averaged intensity of the radiation in the region of interest would be 22 ( = 9+13).
I tried 44 and then 0.37 and they were wrong, please help.
*I give 10 points to best answers so try answering my unresolved questions!What is the intensity of EM radiation in this region?
Because the waves are incoherent, the intensities simply add (being incoherent, they cannot interfere), so the time-averaged intensity of the radiation in the region of interest would be 22 ( = 9+13).
What is a black body radiation and how does it work?
It's a physics assignment and we need to write about black body radiation!!!!What is a black body radiation and how does it work?
Nothing better than wikipedia to help you in such assignments!
check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
Nothing better than wikipedia to help you in such assignments!
check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
Science question from an ignorant science person: What kind of molecules does radiation have?
Before you answer, please keep in mind that I haven't taken a science course since grade 10 (almost 10 years ago). I know that there are three types of molecules: gaseous, liquid, and solid. Gas can seep through, say, windows, you're going to need quite a bit of PSI to get liquid through, and obviously, you can't get solid through. So that got me thinking: how does radiation seep through if it's not a gas? Is it more of a greenhouse concept? Please help me understand this. Thanks in advance.Science question from an ignorant science person: What kind of molecules does radiation have?
Radiation particles ( assuming particles, such as alpha ) are so small they slip right through all that atomic space. Excepting a positive particle hitting almost dead on to the positive nucleus.
radiation is energy....not matter. Therefore, it does not have molecules.Science question from an ignorant science person: What kind of molecules does radiation have?
It's a good question, mostly physics and a little chemistry. Before I answer you (skip to the bottom) we have to define the terms to be clear what we're discussing:
Matter has two forms: Mass and Energy
Radiation (light, radio waves, infra-red, microwaves, X-rays etc.) is matter in the form of energy, i.e. photons. Photons don't occur in molecules and they have no (rest) mass - they never stop, they keep radiating.
Photons do have a frequency (f, "nu", 谓) and an associated energy (E=hf) e.g. X-rays have much higher energy than visible light. Frequency is inversely related to wavelength (lambda, '位') by c=f位, where c = speed of light = constant.
If we say "electromagnetic (EM) radiation" we mean the full spectrum of all wavelengths.
When you say "radiation" you probably mean only the portion of the spectrum corresponding to gamma-waves and alpha/beta-particle emissions.
ALSO, by radiation you probably include radioactive molecules (isotopes of Uranium, Strontium, Cesium, Radium, Barium, Argon, Krypton etc. with more neutrons than normal) i.e. molecules which are unstable (have short half-lives) and decay, emitting more radiation.
Matter in the form of mass can take the states gas, liquid or solid (ok to be geeky, there are other exotic states, at extremes of temperature and pressure, but totally outside of everyday conditions, so forget that).
Matter in the form of mass IS composed of molecules (or atoms, or ions).
%26gt;So that got me thinking: how does radiation seep through if
%26gt; it's not a gas? Is it more of a greenhouse concept?
EM Radiation doesn't need a medium to transmit it (unlike sound waves or vibrations). It radiates through vacuum.
In the 19th century this was hotly debated until the Mitchelson-Mortety experiment in 1884 proved there was no "aether" required to transmit radiation.
So, radiation in the form of photons propagates either through a vacuum, or when it hits matter (e.g. the sky, or objects), it can be absorbed and re-radiated (at a different frequency, which among other things explains why the sky is blue).
Ok that's the end of the geek part, I didn't know how much theory you wanted, but it's crucial to distinguish between mass and energy, and understand that radiation both penetrates and re-radiates, so you can only statistically talk about shielding from it.
So: how does radiation get through your window?
1) The EM waves can propagate directly through your window (most of the radiation will not be absorbed, unless your window is like 6+ft-thick lead-glass - most people's aren't...).
2) Windows don't have perfect seals, and the frame and wall are also slightly porous.
Radioactive particles can gradually physically get through,
like you suggested.
PS you can apply NBC protection to buildings or vehicles (Hummvees) with overpressure on the inside and 100% recirculating your air supply - but that obviously requires lotsa energy.
3) Radiation doesn't just come in the window - if you have pockets of e.g. Argon gas (atoms) in the groundsoil (depends on your local geology e.g. limestone) you get radiation from under the floor.
Also from the water supply.
4) Also there's atmospheric radiation both from the sky and natural background sources on the ground.
This comes through the roof, walls, floor, etc.
The higher up you live, the less the atmosphere gets to absorb berfore it hits you so if you live at 11,000 ft in Bolivia or Tibet you get more incident radiation.
See the NASA paper I cited below.
5) Even if you could eliminate or mitigate all these (you can't, unless you live in a bubble), there's still natural radiation in food and water (not to mention Carbon-12 in burnt toast), so don't sweat it...
Long-distance plane travel, sunbathing, computer use, indsutrial exposure...
You can search for a diagram of how much radiation statistically enters your house, and what sources, and it ain't just the windows, it's the walls, roof, floor... slightly scary.
The executive summary is: radiation has multiple modes of transmitting, and you can't do much about it at all unless you want to live in a lead bunker... (If this bothers you the best you can do is move to a low-radiation area.)
PS the "secure undisclosed location" bunker where the US shadow government would continue in the event of an attack is said to be Mount Weather, VA [link 2 below]. See also Cheyenne Mountain, CO (NORAD's bunker).
You might get them to help with your home improvements, or get HGTV to do a makeover show "Radiation-Proof This House".
Hope that answers you.
That's not exactly a simple question to answer, though I hope this helps to briefly answer it: There are different types of radiation. One type of radiation is a piece of the nucleus that comes flying out when a radioactive isotope decays. Therefore it is essentially the unstable molecules/isotopes that can produce radiation/radioactivity.Science question from an ignorant science person: What kind of molecules does radiation have?
Molecules are clusters of atoms which mean physical matter. Physical matter most commonly exists in one of 3 states; gas, liquid, or solid. These states are defined by the strength of the molecular bonds and level of kinetic energy and "space" between molecules. Gases molecules are very loosely spaced, liquid in thighter clusters and solids having comparatively very little motion at the molecular level.
Radiation, on the other hand, is a form of energy, along with kinetic energy (motion) and potential energy (stored but not being expended). Radiation is emitted when particles are released from atoms during a physical or chemical reaction. Some everyday examples of radiant energy are microwaves, light, and heat.
Ok, simpley there are 3 kinds of radiation!
Alpha:
Made of: 1proton and 1neutron (a large positively charged partical + a neutral partical)
this is the largest of all three and will only travel a few centimeters in air, cannot travel far at all through liquids or solids due to its size, it ionises them on contact.
Beta:
Made of: 1electron (tiny negitively charged particals, what electricity is made of)
this is millions off times smaller than alpha, it is far less ionising but can travel a fair distance through air and a limited distance through liquids and solids (it fits in between the atoms)
Gamma:
Made of: electromagnetic waves
this is not a partical so it has no problem passing through solids and over a great distance in air. it is along the same lines as light and radio waves but at a much higher frequency.
I hope this helps
Radiation particles ( assuming particles, such as alpha ) are so small they slip right through all that atomic space. Excepting a positive particle hitting almost dead on to the positive nucleus.
radiation is energy....not matter. Therefore, it does not have molecules.Science question from an ignorant science person: What kind of molecules does radiation have?
It's a good question, mostly physics and a little chemistry. Before I answer you (skip to the bottom) we have to define the terms to be clear what we're discussing:
Matter has two forms: Mass and Energy
Radiation (light, radio waves, infra-red, microwaves, X-rays etc.) is matter in the form of energy, i.e. photons. Photons don't occur in molecules and they have no (rest) mass - they never stop, they keep radiating.
Photons do have a frequency (f, "nu", 谓) and an associated energy (E=hf) e.g. X-rays have much higher energy than visible light. Frequency is inversely related to wavelength (lambda, '位') by c=f位, where c = speed of light = constant.
If we say "electromagnetic (EM) radiation" we mean the full spectrum of all wavelengths.
When you say "radiation" you probably mean only the portion of the spectrum corresponding to gamma-waves and alpha/beta-particle emissions.
ALSO, by radiation you probably include radioactive molecules (isotopes of Uranium, Strontium, Cesium, Radium, Barium, Argon, Krypton etc. with more neutrons than normal) i.e. molecules which are unstable (have short half-lives) and decay, emitting more radiation.
Matter in the form of mass can take the states gas, liquid or solid (ok to be geeky, there are other exotic states, at extremes of temperature and pressure, but totally outside of everyday conditions, so forget that).
Matter in the form of mass IS composed of molecules (or atoms, or ions).
%26gt;So that got me thinking: how does radiation seep through if
%26gt; it's not a gas? Is it more of a greenhouse concept?
EM Radiation doesn't need a medium to transmit it (unlike sound waves or vibrations). It radiates through vacuum.
In the 19th century this was hotly debated until the Mitchelson-Mortety experiment in 1884 proved there was no "aether" required to transmit radiation.
So, radiation in the form of photons propagates either through a vacuum, or when it hits matter (e.g. the sky, or objects), it can be absorbed and re-radiated (at a different frequency, which among other things explains why the sky is blue).
Ok that's the end of the geek part, I didn't know how much theory you wanted, but it's crucial to distinguish between mass and energy, and understand that radiation both penetrates and re-radiates, so you can only statistically talk about shielding from it.
So: how does radiation get through your window?
1) The EM waves can propagate directly through your window (most of the radiation will not be absorbed, unless your window is like 6+ft-thick lead-glass - most people's aren't...).
2) Windows don't have perfect seals, and the frame and wall are also slightly porous.
Radioactive particles can gradually physically get through,
like you suggested.
PS you can apply NBC protection to buildings or vehicles (Hummvees) with overpressure on the inside and 100% recirculating your air supply - but that obviously requires lotsa energy.
3) Radiation doesn't just come in the window - if you have pockets of e.g. Argon gas (atoms) in the groundsoil (depends on your local geology e.g. limestone) you get radiation from under the floor.
Also from the water supply.
4) Also there's atmospheric radiation both from the sky and natural background sources on the ground.
This comes through the roof, walls, floor, etc.
The higher up you live, the less the atmosphere gets to absorb berfore it hits you so if you live at 11,000 ft in Bolivia or Tibet you get more incident radiation.
See the NASA paper I cited below.
5) Even if you could eliminate or mitigate all these (you can't, unless you live in a bubble), there's still natural radiation in food and water (not to mention Carbon-12 in burnt toast), so don't sweat it...
Long-distance plane travel, sunbathing, computer use, indsutrial exposure...
You can search for a diagram of how much radiation statistically enters your house, and what sources, and it ain't just the windows, it's the walls, roof, floor... slightly scary.
The executive summary is: radiation has multiple modes of transmitting, and you can't do much about it at all unless you want to live in a lead bunker... (If this bothers you the best you can do is move to a low-radiation area.)
PS the "secure undisclosed location" bunker where the US shadow government would continue in the event of an attack is said to be Mount Weather, VA [link 2 below]. See also Cheyenne Mountain, CO (NORAD's bunker).
You might get them to help with your home improvements, or get HGTV to do a makeover show "Radiation-Proof This House".
Hope that answers you.
That's not exactly a simple question to answer, though I hope this helps to briefly answer it: There are different types of radiation. One type of radiation is a piece of the nucleus that comes flying out when a radioactive isotope decays. Therefore it is essentially the unstable molecules/isotopes that can produce radiation/radioactivity.Science question from an ignorant science person: What kind of molecules does radiation have?
Molecules are clusters of atoms which mean physical matter. Physical matter most commonly exists in one of 3 states; gas, liquid, or solid. These states are defined by the strength of the molecular bonds and level of kinetic energy and "space" between molecules. Gases molecules are very loosely spaced, liquid in thighter clusters and solids having comparatively very little motion at the molecular level.
Radiation, on the other hand, is a form of energy, along with kinetic energy (motion) and potential energy (stored but not being expended). Radiation is emitted when particles are released from atoms during a physical or chemical reaction. Some everyday examples of radiant energy are microwaves, light, and heat.
Ok, simpley there are 3 kinds of radiation!
Alpha:
Made of: 1proton and 1neutron (a large positively charged partical + a neutral partical)
this is the largest of all three and will only travel a few centimeters in air, cannot travel far at all through liquids or solids due to its size, it ionises them on contact.
Beta:
Made of: 1electron (tiny negitively charged particals, what electricity is made of)
this is millions off times smaller than alpha, it is far less ionising but can travel a fair distance through air and a limited distance through liquids and solids (it fits in between the atoms)
Gamma:
Made of: electromagnetic waves
this is not a partical so it has no problem passing through solids and over a great distance in air. it is along the same lines as light and radio waves but at a much higher frequency.
I hope this helps
What is the relationship between radiation rate and temperature for a black body?
What is the relationship between radiation rate and temperature for a black body?
A. Proportional to the temperature
B. Inversely proportional to the temperature
C. Proportional to the square of the temperature
D. Proportional to the fourth power of the temperatureWhat is the relationship between radiation rate and temperature for a black body?
D. fourth power.
A. Proportional to the temperature
B. Inversely proportional to the temperature
C. Proportional to the square of the temperature
D. Proportional to the fourth power of the temperatureWhat is the relationship between radiation rate and temperature for a black body?
D. fourth power.
What attributes do you have that would assist you in performing the role of the radiation therapist?
It is essential that a radiation therapist can work effectively as part of a team of health care professionals and dealing directly with patients and their families. What attributes do you have that would assist you in performing the role of the radiation therapist?What attributes do you have that would assist you in performing the role of the radiation therapist?
Just to add briefly to the excellent information offered by the first author, it's a career where your patients will generally have very serious malignancies and they will vary in ages. You will need to have that ability to be caring and empathetic toward them yet still maintain that professional ability to not allow their pain to become yours. It can be extremely difficult to balance the two. Beyond the technical expertise which you will gain during your training, it's important to be extremely patient and understanding to your patients as they are amongst the most pike and prodded of all considering how much imaging, surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy they often have undergone, so you must be really attuned to how much they've endured given their illness. Lastly, I'd say that you should always maintain a healthy interest in any disease which a patient may have which means staying abreats of any critical information that relates to a given diseas and the relevent treatement that is used in the treatment of the disease beyond radiation therapy.What attributes do you have that would assist you in performing the role of the radiation therapist?
This is a wonderful career but you must be an extremely emotionally stable person,as the harsh reality is alot of people you will be caring for will die.You will need to be energetic,pleasant and honest.You will definitely be working with a team and above all You need to be very sensitive to the needs of others.Go for it though if its right for you.
Just to add briefly to the excellent information offered by the first author, it's a career where your patients will generally have very serious malignancies and they will vary in ages. You will need to have that ability to be caring and empathetic toward them yet still maintain that professional ability to not allow their pain to become yours. It can be extremely difficult to balance the two. Beyond the technical expertise which you will gain during your training, it's important to be extremely patient and understanding to your patients as they are amongst the most pike and prodded of all considering how much imaging, surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy they often have undergone, so you must be really attuned to how much they've endured given their illness. Lastly, I'd say that you should always maintain a healthy interest in any disease which a patient may have which means staying abreats of any critical information that relates to a given diseas and the relevent treatement that is used in the treatment of the disease beyond radiation therapy.What attributes do you have that would assist you in performing the role of the radiation therapist?
This is a wonderful career but you must be an extremely emotionally stable person,as the harsh reality is alot of people you will be caring for will die.You will need to be energetic,pleasant and honest.You will definitely be working with a team and above all You need to be very sensitive to the needs of others.Go for it though if its right for you.
What is the difference between ultraviolet and infrared radiation?
a. The speed of the wave
b. The height of the wave
c. The frequency of the wave
2. The higher the temperature of an object
a. The faster the speed of the radiation
b. The shorter the peak wavelength
c. The longer the peak wavelength
d. The slower the speed of the radiationWhat is the difference between ultraviolet and infrared radiation?
1) c
2) b
b. The height of the wave
c. The frequency of the wave
2. The higher the temperature of an object
a. The faster the speed of the radiation
b. The shorter the peak wavelength
c. The longer the peak wavelength
d. The slower the speed of the radiationWhat is the difference between ultraviolet and infrared radiation?
1) c
2) b
What is a form of evolution that is also known as adaptive radiation?
What is a form of evolution that is also known as adaptive radiation?What is a form of evolution that is also known as adaptive radiation?
Darwin finches.
Darwin finches.
Temperature on earth if radiation off earth equals radiation recieved from the sun?
What would the temperature on earth be if we assume that its temperature makes the outgoing radiation equal to the radiation vi receive from the sun? The earth is not a perfect black-body and some of the the outgoing radiation will be reflected by the atmosphere.
The power density of the sun's radiation on the surface of the earth is approximately 1.4 kW/m^2 when the radiation is perpendicular to the ground.
And in addition, what would the earth temperature be if we had sunlight 24 hours a day everywhere on earth?
Pointers or complete solutions would be greatly appreciated.Temperature on earth if radiation off earth equals radiation recieved from the sun?
The idea is the following: the total power emission of a black body is P = s T^4 where s is the stefan boltzmann constant. Thus, the sun, which we can imagine to be at the center of the earth's circular orbit radiates a power s T^4. now if we assume the radiation is isotropic (independent of direction) how much power is incident on the earth? consider the energy flux (power/unit area) emitted from the sun, ie imagine the power radiating like a big sphere from the surface of the sun- for power to be conserved the power density must decrease like 1/r^2 where r is the distance from the sun. so the power density at a distance R from the sun is
p = P/A = s T^4 / (4 pi R^2)
this power density p is incident on the earth's cross section, and so the total power absorbed by the earth is
p * pi re^2
where re is the radius of the earth. the earth will be at thermal equilibrium when it is also emitting this much power
ie when
Pe = s Te^4 = s T^4 (pi re^2) / (4pi R^2)
where Te is the temperature of the sun. So just solve for Te!
The power density of the sun's radiation on the surface of the earth is approximately 1.4 kW/m^2 when the radiation is perpendicular to the ground.
And in addition, what would the earth temperature be if we had sunlight 24 hours a day everywhere on earth?
Pointers or complete solutions would be greatly appreciated.Temperature on earth if radiation off earth equals radiation recieved from the sun?
The idea is the following: the total power emission of a black body is P = s T^4 where s is the stefan boltzmann constant. Thus, the sun, which we can imagine to be at the center of the earth's circular orbit radiates a power s T^4. now if we assume the radiation is isotropic (independent of direction) how much power is incident on the earth? consider the energy flux (power/unit area) emitted from the sun, ie imagine the power radiating like a big sphere from the surface of the sun- for power to be conserved the power density must decrease like 1/r^2 where r is the distance from the sun. so the power density at a distance R from the sun is
p = P/A = s T^4 / (4 pi R^2)
this power density p is incident on the earth's cross section, and so the total power absorbed by the earth is
p * pi re^2
where re is the radius of the earth. the earth will be at thermal equilibrium when it is also emitting this much power
ie when
Pe = s Te^4 = s T^4 (pi re^2) / (4pi R^2)
where Te is the temperature of the sun. So just solve for Te!
Is it normal for curly hair to grow back straight after radiation therapy?
I had IMR radiation for 6 weeks after having a brain tumour removed (2 years ago Jan. '11) MY hair has, for the most part, all grown back now. The hairline around my ears changed a bit, but what I'm noticing most is that my hair is relatively straight now. Before starting radiation it was curly, to the point of unmanageable. I was just wondering if it was normal for radiation to affect hair this way. Thanks!Is it normal for curly hair to grow back straight after radiation therapy?
Yes it is normal for treatments to change the texture and color of your hair.Is it normal for curly hair to grow back straight after radiation therapy?
mine was the opposite. after my chemo treatment, my hair was incredibly curly, and before it was straight. now a year and a half off its back to normal.north carolina dmv acura tsx
Yes it is normal for treatments to change the texture and color of your hair.Is it normal for curly hair to grow back straight after radiation therapy?
mine was the opposite. after my chemo treatment, my hair was incredibly curly, and before it was straight. now a year and a half off its back to normal.
Is it normal for curly hair to grow back straight after radiation therapy?
I had IMR radiation for 6 weeks after having a brain tumour removed (2 years ago Jan. '11) MY hair has, for the most part, all grown back now. The hairline around my ears changed a bit, but what I'm noticing most is that my hair is relatively straight now. Before starting radiation it was curly, to the point of unmanageable. I was just wondering if it was normal for radiation to affect hair this way. Thanks!Is it normal for curly hair to grow back straight after radiation therapy?
Yes it is normal for treatments to change the texture and color of your hair.Is it normal for curly hair to grow back straight after radiation therapy?
mine was the opposite. after my chemo treatment, my hair was incredibly curly, and before it was straight. now a year and a half off its back to normal.
Yes it is normal for treatments to change the texture and color of your hair.Is it normal for curly hair to grow back straight after radiation therapy?
mine was the opposite. after my chemo treatment, my hair was incredibly curly, and before it was straight. now a year and a half off its back to normal.
What is a good title for a research paper about cellphone radiation's harmful biological effects?
We are conducting a research about exposure to cellphone radiation as a cause for harmful biological effects such as brain cancer, dizziness and etc..What is a good title for a research paper about cellphone radiation's harmful biological effects?
"An Invisible killer beside you"
"a portable cance"What is a good title for a research paper about cellphone radiation's harmful biological effects?
"Sending Messages (and Radiation)"
"Unhealthy Phone Calls?"
"Talking Your Way to Cancer?"
"An Invisible killer beside you"
"a portable cance"What is a good title for a research paper about cellphone radiation's harmful biological effects?
"Sending Messages (and Radiation)"
"Unhealthy Phone Calls?"
"Talking Your Way to Cancer?"
What is the importance of atmospheric ozone in terms of ultraviolet radiation from the sun?
What is the importance of atmospheric ozone in terms of ultraviolet radiation from the sun?What is the importance of atmospheric ozone in terms of ultraviolet radiation from the sun?
Ozone is made because the nitrogen and oxygen in the "ozone layer" stop UV-C and more energetic radiation from the Sun.
DNA-based life exists on the surface of the Earth because ozone blocks most UV-B from the Sun.
Ozone is made because the nitrogen and oxygen in the "ozone layer" stop UV-C and more energetic radiation from the Sun.
DNA-based life exists on the surface of the Earth because ozone blocks most UV-B from the Sun.
What is the behaviour that supports the dual nature of electromagnetic radiation?
Electromagnetic radiation (i.e. infra red and so on) have a wave-particle duality meaning it can behave as a wave or as a photon (that exhibits particle-like behaviour), I want to know the behaviour that they exhibit that supports this theory...can anyone help?What is the behaviour that supports the dual nature of electromagnetic radiation?
Young's slit experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSHlp9z3n…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlPvzn5sG…
Photoelectric effect, slightly more complex.
The principle behind the Photoelectric effect basically is that if light is a wave then the only factor which should affect the amount of electrons escaping the electrostatic attraction of the metal should be the amplitude (i.e. the amount of energy in the wave) but not the frequency of the wave- doesn’t matter how many times you hit a lorry with a hammer, its never going to move. Also, if the light waves amplitude is too low, then you get no electrons escaping from the electrostatic force, because the waves won’t transfer enough energy to liberate them themselves. But…
Planck’s constant, which is referred to as h, and apparently h=6.626x10^(-34)Joules,
showed that energy could only come in discrete energy ‘packets’, which lead Einstein to believe that light also came in discrete energy packets, which would mean that light itself would be a particle- a photon. The amount of energy transferred would be Planck’s constant times the frequency of the photon (because frequency is proportional to the energy level) which would mean that frequency of the electromagnetic radiation would affect the kinetic energy of electrons escaping from the electrostatic force, because the photons with higher frequencies would have more energy, and so transfer more. This would mean that leaving the intensity (the amount of photons hitting the surface per unit of time) the same, but increasing the frequency of the light, would raise the maximum kinetic energy level of the electrons which are liberated, and that leaving the frequency constant, and increasing the intensity of the light would mean more electrons would be released, but their kinetic energy would remain constant. This would also mean that electromagnetic radiation with too low a frequency would not liberate any electrons, but that if you have a really high frequency, even if you have very low intensity, then you will still liberate some electrons.
Robert Andrews Millikan conducted experiments in 1910s which has since verified all of the predictions set out by the photoelectric effect.
However, light can not be just a particle, as certain aspects of it have been proved to be wave, or wave-like, namely in the “double-slit experiment”, but many others as well.
This is the site I used. Its got to be the best for clarity,
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/qua…
good luck :DWhat is the behaviour that supports the dual nature of electromagnetic radiation?
in explaining the phenomena like interference ,diffraction ,polarisation light is treated as a wave where as it is treated as a photon to explain photoelectric effect , compton effect.What is the behaviour that supports the dual nature of electromagnetic radiation?
Hope this helps.
A time-domain method with isotropic dispersion and increased stability on an overlapped lattice
Forgy, E.A. Weng Cho Chew
Dept. of Electr. %26amp; Comput. Eng., Illinois Univ., Urbana, IL;
This paper appears in: Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Transactions on
Publication Date: Jul 2002
Volume: 50, Issue: 7
On page(s): 983- 996
ISSN: 0018-926X
INSPEC Accession Number: 7370039
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/TAP.2002.801373
Posted online: 2002-11-07 17:09:07.0
Abstract
A time-domain method on an overlapped lattice is presented for the accurate and efficient simulation of electromagnetic wave propagation through inhomogeneous media. The method comprises a superposition of complementary approximations to electromagnetic theory on a lattice. The discrete space-time (DST) method, is set on a pair of dual lattices whose field components are collocated on their respective lattice sites. The other, the time-domain element (TDE) method, is set on overlapping dual lattices whose field components are noncollocated. The TDE method is shown to be a generalization and reinterpretation of the Yee algorithm. The benefits of the combined algorithm over comparable methods include: (1) increased accuracy over larger bandwidths; (2) increased stability allowing larger time steps; (3) local stencil-satisfying boundary conditions on interfaces; (4) self-contained mathematical framework; (5) it is physically intuitive.
Enjoy
Young's slit experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSHlp9z3n…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlPvzn5sG…
Photoelectric effect, slightly more complex.
The principle behind the Photoelectric effect basically is that if light is a wave then the only factor which should affect the amount of electrons escaping the electrostatic attraction of the metal should be the amplitude (i.e. the amount of energy in the wave) but not the frequency of the wave- doesn’t matter how many times you hit a lorry with a hammer, its never going to move. Also, if the light waves amplitude is too low, then you get no electrons escaping from the electrostatic force, because the waves won’t transfer enough energy to liberate them themselves. But…
Planck’s constant, which is referred to as h, and apparently h=6.626x10^(-34)Joules,
showed that energy could only come in discrete energy ‘packets’, which lead Einstein to believe that light also came in discrete energy packets, which would mean that light itself would be a particle- a photon. The amount of energy transferred would be Planck’s constant times the frequency of the photon (because frequency is proportional to the energy level) which would mean that frequency of the electromagnetic radiation would affect the kinetic energy of electrons escaping from the electrostatic force, because the photons with higher frequencies would have more energy, and so transfer more. This would mean that leaving the intensity (the amount of photons hitting the surface per unit of time) the same, but increasing the frequency of the light, would raise the maximum kinetic energy level of the electrons which are liberated, and that leaving the frequency constant, and increasing the intensity of the light would mean more electrons would be released, but their kinetic energy would remain constant. This would also mean that electromagnetic radiation with too low a frequency would not liberate any electrons, but that if you have a really high frequency, even if you have very low intensity, then you will still liberate some electrons.
Robert Andrews Millikan conducted experiments in 1910s which has since verified all of the predictions set out by the photoelectric effect.
However, light can not be just a particle, as certain aspects of it have been proved to be wave, or wave-like, namely in the “double-slit experiment”, but many others as well.
This is the site I used. Its got to be the best for clarity,
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/qua…
good luck :DWhat is the behaviour that supports the dual nature of electromagnetic radiation?
in explaining the phenomena like interference ,diffraction ,polarisation light is treated as a wave where as it is treated as a photon to explain photoelectric effect , compton effect.What is the behaviour that supports the dual nature of electromagnetic radiation?
Hope this helps.
A time-domain method with isotropic dispersion and increased stability on an overlapped lattice
Forgy, E.A. Weng Cho Chew
Dept. of Electr. %26amp; Comput. Eng., Illinois Univ., Urbana, IL;
This paper appears in: Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Transactions on
Publication Date: Jul 2002
Volume: 50, Issue: 7
On page(s): 983- 996
ISSN: 0018-926X
INSPEC Accession Number: 7370039
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/TAP.2002.801373
Posted online: 2002-11-07 17:09:07.0
Abstract
A time-domain method on an overlapped lattice is presented for the accurate and efficient simulation of electromagnetic wave propagation through inhomogeneous media. The method comprises a superposition of complementary approximations to electromagnetic theory on a lattice. The discrete space-time (DST) method, is set on a pair of dual lattices whose field components are collocated on their respective lattice sites. The other, the time-domain element (TDE) method, is set on overlapping dual lattices whose field components are noncollocated. The TDE method is shown to be a generalization and reinterpretation of the Yee algorithm. The benefits of the combined algorithm over comparable methods include: (1) increased accuracy over larger bandwidths; (2) increased stability allowing larger time steps; (3) local stencil-satisfying boundary conditions on interfaces; (4) self-contained mathematical framework; (5) it is physically intuitive.
Enjoy
What is Radiation and what is electricity?
I did college level chemistry and remember something about the reason why luminescent radioactive paint such as that used on clock faces are luminescent. This is because the atoms of the paint are unstable and the electrons orbiting the atom nucleus are jumping orbits and releasing energy which is in the form of light and radiation.
I tried basic physics and couldn't do it, but becuase of chemistry I worked out that electricity is the free flow of electrons along a material, don't know if this is right.
If both the above are accurate then both radiation and electricity are down to the action of electrons and so are related forms of energy?!What is Radiation and what is electricity?
Here's the simplest way to understand electricity.
Materials made of atoms (matter), have many atoms. Each has a nucleus of protons and neutrons. The electrons orbit outside of that nucleus, like miniature planets around a miniture sun.
Some of the electrons in the "outer orbit" (valance band) are free. That is, they can be torn away. If the material is a conductor, you have a whole lot of these.
Now all you need is a potential diffferance. That's the same thing as voltage. Just means you have UNEQUEEL charge (# of free electrons) in one place vs. another in the material. So electrons flow to where the charge is most positive until everything equeels out.
Of course, if you have a motor or a battery or a generator - the Potential Differance (voltage) DOESN'T equeel out. The voltage source keeps that from happening - so you have continuous electricity.
That flow of electrons is called "current."What is Radiation and what is electricity?
they're certainly related but not very closely.What is Radiation and what is electricity?
radiation is actually propagated in three different forms
1-alpha rays
2-beta rays
3-gamma rays
-alpha rays are 2 protons and to neutrons(like a He2+ ion)
-Beta rays are electrons(or positrons) that are liberated from the nucleus by neutron decay.
-gamma rays are highly energetic photons(principle particle of electromagnetic radiation)having very high penetrating power.
now for electricity
electricity is basically the flow of electrons from one point to another due to differences in the voltage.
now if you try to equate together the fact that Beta rays are ordinary electrons the main differences are
-Beta rays are produced in the nucleus.
-They are much more energetic than ordinary electrons bound to an atom
-they are free from the atom and move not around a nucleus but instead in definite paths.
hence radiation and electricity cannot be considered the same at all.allthough they can be interconverted.dragon age 2 pc superchips
I tried basic physics and couldn't do it, but becuase of chemistry I worked out that electricity is the free flow of electrons along a material, don't know if this is right.
If both the above are accurate then both radiation and electricity are down to the action of electrons and so are related forms of energy?!What is Radiation and what is electricity?
Here's the simplest way to understand electricity.
Materials made of atoms (matter), have many atoms. Each has a nucleus of protons and neutrons. The electrons orbit outside of that nucleus, like miniature planets around a miniture sun.
Some of the electrons in the "outer orbit" (valance band) are free. That is, they can be torn away. If the material is a conductor, you have a whole lot of these.
Now all you need is a potential diffferance. That's the same thing as voltage. Just means you have UNEQUEEL charge (# of free electrons) in one place vs. another in the material. So electrons flow to where the charge is most positive until everything equeels out.
Of course, if you have a motor or a battery or a generator - the Potential Differance (voltage) DOESN'T equeel out. The voltage source keeps that from happening - so you have continuous electricity.
That flow of electrons is called "current."What is Radiation and what is electricity?
they're certainly related but not very closely.What is Radiation and what is electricity?
radiation is actually propagated in three different forms
1-alpha rays
2-beta rays
3-gamma rays
-alpha rays are 2 protons and to neutrons(like a He2+ ion)
-Beta rays are electrons(or positrons) that are liberated from the nucleus by neutron decay.
-gamma rays are highly energetic photons(principle particle of electromagnetic radiation)having very high penetrating power.
now for electricity
electricity is basically the flow of electrons from one point to another due to differences in the voltage.
now if you try to equate together the fact that Beta rays are ordinary electrons the main differences are
-Beta rays are produced in the nucleus.
-They are much more energetic than ordinary electrons bound to an atom
-they are free from the atom and move not around a nucleus but instead in definite paths.
hence radiation and electricity cannot be considered the same at all.allthough they can be interconverted.
How fast does an electron have to move to emit Cherenkov Radiation?
I have a friend whom I'm haveing an argument with and he doesn't think that there is anything that can move faster than light in real life. that it's all just theoretical. So my questions are: What is the speed that an Electron begins to emit Cherenkov radiation? and what is the fastest an Electron can theoreticly travel?How fast does an electron have to move to emit Cherenkov Radiation?
From the Wikipedia article:
膶erenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or Cherenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as a proton) passes through an insulator at a speed greater than the speed of light in that medium.
Hence, a general answer is: faster than the speed of light.
As to your second question, I couldn't find a clear statement; however, I did turn this up, which is interesting:
"Electrometers measure electric charge, but there must be a fundamental speed limit to measuring one electric charge. Since there are no dimensional inputs to this question, the answer must be expressible in terms of the fundamental physical constants of Nature, e,h,m,c. In general the question should be posed without reference to any specific technology, but for definiteness, we analyze the field effect transistor, which is essentially an electrometer. In spite of selecting a specific technology, we find that the speed limit is related to a fundamental constant, the Rydberg frequency, or as appropriate, the semiconductor Rydberg frequency including the electron effective mass, and the relative dielectric constant. We do not know whether the Rydberg frequency represents the upper speed limit, but on dimensional grounds we claim that the final limit can only differ by some power of the fine-structure-constant."How fast does an electron have to move to emit Cherenkov Radiation?
Cherenkov radiation is emitted when an electron creates a "light shockwave" basically this means that it is moving faster then the speed of light in the given medium. This is impossible in a vacuum, and very difficult in air where the speed of light is very nearly the same as in a vacuum because the maximum speed an electron can achieve is 3E8 m/s however in water it is only 2.2556E8 m/s.How fast does an electron have to move to emit Cherenkov Radiation?
this type of radiations are emitted when a charge particle moves with or more than speed of light,i-e;3*10exp8m/sec.
it has to move faster than the speed of light in the media it is in.
For example, it would have to move faster than ~3x10^8 m/s in a vacuum.
The best example is in water, where a substance undergoing Beta decay emits electrons at a faster speed than the speed of light in the water, hence why radioactive things "glow" underwater.
NOTE: Radioactive things don't usually glow in air, only in high-density fluids.
From the Wikipedia article:
膶erenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or Cherenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as a proton) passes through an insulator at a speed greater than the speed of light in that medium.
Hence, a general answer is: faster than the speed of light.
As to your second question, I couldn't find a clear statement; however, I did turn this up, which is interesting:
"Electrometers measure electric charge, but there must be a fundamental speed limit to measuring one electric charge. Since there are no dimensional inputs to this question, the answer must be expressible in terms of the fundamental physical constants of Nature, e,h,m,c. In general the question should be posed without reference to any specific technology, but for definiteness, we analyze the field effect transistor, which is essentially an electrometer. In spite of selecting a specific technology, we find that the speed limit is related to a fundamental constant, the Rydberg frequency, or as appropriate, the semiconductor Rydberg frequency including the electron effective mass, and the relative dielectric constant. We do not know whether the Rydberg frequency represents the upper speed limit, but on dimensional grounds we claim that the final limit can only differ by some power of the fine-structure-constant."How fast does an electron have to move to emit Cherenkov Radiation?
Cherenkov radiation is emitted when an electron creates a "light shockwave" basically this means that it is moving faster then the speed of light in the given medium. This is impossible in a vacuum, and very difficult in air where the speed of light is very nearly the same as in a vacuum because the maximum speed an electron can achieve is 3E8 m/s however in water it is only 2.2556E8 m/s.How fast does an electron have to move to emit Cherenkov Radiation?
this type of radiations are emitted when a charge particle moves with or more than speed of light,i-e;3*10exp8m/sec.
it has to move faster than the speed of light in the media it is in.
For example, it would have to move faster than ~3x10^8 m/s in a vacuum.
The best example is in water, where a substance undergoing Beta decay emits electrons at a faster speed than the speed of light in the water, hence why radioactive things "glow" underwater.
NOTE: Radioactive things don't usually glow in air, only in high-density fluids.
How does radiation control the fruit fly?
I am doing a project on nuclear radiation and need to know how radiation controls the fruit fly. What part does it plat in the sterilisation process? how does it work? what size doses are involved? who conducts the sterilisation? why is this methos so productive? why is it better for the environment? whats so importasnt about the female fruit flies?How does radiation control the fruit fly?
A method of biological control, whereby millions of sterile insects are released. The released insects are normally male as it is the female that causes the damage, usually by laying eggs in the crop, or, in the case of mosquitoes, taking a bloodmeal from humans. The sterile males compete with the wild males for female insects. If a female mates with a sterile male then it will have no offspring, thus reducing the next generation's population. Repeated release of insects can eventually wipe out a population, though it is often more useful to consider controlling the population rather than eradicating it.
The technique has successfully been used to eradicate the Screw-worm fly (Cochliomyia hominivorax) in areas of North America. There have also been many successes in controlling species of fruit flies, most particularly the Medfly (Ceratitis capitata), and the Mexican fruit fly (Anastrepha ludens).
Insects are mostly sterilized with radiation, which might weaken the newly sterilized insects, if doses are not correctly applied, making them less able to compete with wild males[3][4][5]. However, other sterilization techniques are under development which would not affect the insects' ability to mate.
A method of biological control, whereby millions of sterile insects are released. The released insects are normally male as it is the female that causes the damage, usually by laying eggs in the crop, or, in the case of mosquitoes, taking a bloodmeal from humans. The sterile males compete with the wild males for female insects. If a female mates with a sterile male then it will have no offspring, thus reducing the next generation's population. Repeated release of insects can eventually wipe out a population, though it is often more useful to consider controlling the population rather than eradicating it.
The technique has successfully been used to eradicate the Screw-worm fly (Cochliomyia hominivorax) in areas of North America. There have also been many successes in controlling species of fruit flies, most particularly the Medfly (Ceratitis capitata), and the Mexican fruit fly (Anastrepha ludens).
Insects are mostly sterilized with radiation, which might weaken the newly sterilized insects, if doses are not correctly applied, making them less able to compete with wild males[3][4][5]. However, other sterilization techniques are under development which would not affect the insects' ability to mate.
What is the nuclear war movie called that ends with a family taking drugs to die before radiation comes?
I am trying to find a movie that I watched awhile back, but can not remember the name. The movie has to do with the after effects of a nuclear war scenario. At the end of the movie a family takes some sort of drug to die so that they don't die from the radiation headed their way (i think they are in australia at the end of the movie). I watched it in various parts on youtube.What is the nuclear war movie called that ends with a family taking drugs to die before radiation comes?
It might be "On the Beach".
It might be "On the Beach".
How to cover up radiation bald spots ?
I'm having radiation and I'm wondering what solutions I have to cover up my bald spots. I'm in grade eleven and this is something i need to fix e I go back to school. The worst is the bang area. I'm also losing some at the back of my head and on the side. Thank you for any suggestions ! :)How to cover up radiation bald spots ?
Talk to your hairdresser. Mine was very helpful.How to cover up radiation bald spots ?
Well, you could wear a wig, or get a bunch of cute hats and switch off. You could also go to a salon and get custom-made extensions put in. And remember, Sweetie, you'll always be beautiful, with hair and without. Best of luck to you!How to cover up radiation bald spots ?
they have some really cute hats and scarves for cancer people maybe you can ask the radiation people they usually have alot of information on where to get hats ,scarvers or wigs
and sometimes they have donated items.
wear a wig or a hat im sorry for your health condition how did it happen?
Talk to your hairdresser. Mine was very helpful.How to cover up radiation bald spots ?
Well, you could wear a wig, or get a bunch of cute hats and switch off. You could also go to a salon and get custom-made extensions put in. And remember, Sweetie, you'll always be beautiful, with hair and without. Best of luck to you!How to cover up radiation bald spots ?
they have some really cute hats and scarves for cancer people maybe you can ask the radiation people they usually have alot of information on where to get hats ,scarvers or wigs
and sometimes they have donated items.
wear a wig or a hat im sorry for your health condition how did it happen?
What is likely to happen to a protein molecule that is exposed to intense heat or radiation?
What is likely to happen to a protein molecule that is exposed to intense heat or radiation?What is likely to happen to a protein molecule that is exposed to intense heat or radiation?
All proteins have a special shape, and their shape determines what function they will perform. Proteins can become denatured, or their shape can change, and it'll cause the loss of function. There are different things that can cause proteins to denature (change shape). These are: change in PH, change in temperature (exposure to heat), and change in salt concentration. So this means that proteins exposed to heat will most likely become denatured and lose the ability to perform their task.What is likely to happen to a protein molecule that is exposed to intense heat or radiation?
Denaturation.tess gerritsen chrome apps
All proteins have a special shape, and their shape determines what function they will perform. Proteins can become denatured, or their shape can change, and it'll cause the loss of function. There are different things that can cause proteins to denature (change shape). These are: change in PH, change in temperature (exposure to heat), and change in salt concentration. So this means that proteins exposed to heat will most likely become denatured and lose the ability to perform their task.What is likely to happen to a protein molecule that is exposed to intense heat or radiation?
Denaturation.
What were the units of light energy emitted by blackbody radiation originally called?
What were the units of light energy emitted by blackbody radiation originally called?
A. electron volts
B. quanta
C. joules
D. resonators
PLEASE explain your answer so I can follow you. Thanks to all. All help is grealty appreciated. =)What were the units of light energy emitted by blackbody radiation originally called?
History isn't my area of expertise (maybe none perhaps), but quanta describes any specific quantity. It's not D. A doesn't apply. Give a life line a try for a 50/50.What were the units of light energy emitted by blackbody radiation originally called?
radiation emitted by a black body is expressed in "watts/m^2.
A. electron volts
B. quanta
C. joules
D. resonators
PLEASE explain your answer so I can follow you. Thanks to all. All help is grealty appreciated. =)What were the units of light energy emitted by blackbody radiation originally called?
History isn't my area of expertise (maybe none perhaps), but quanta describes any specific quantity. It's not D. A doesn't apply. Give a life line a try for a 50/50.What were the units of light energy emitted by blackbody radiation originally called?
radiation emitted by a black body is expressed in "watts/m^2.
Does radiation from television or a computer effect your appearance?
does radiation from television or a computer effect your appearance. does it make your face look unhealthy if there is too much radiation. bad skin and etc. what you think.Does radiation from television or a computer effect your appearance?
You will eventually look like Larry King.Does radiation from television or a computer effect your appearance?
Yes, they have some impact on you. But the impact can be lowered by doing meditation. If you don't know how to do meditation, refer this book, believe me it will change your life in to a beautiful one.
I'm saying this because "Your mental state can influence your body and your physical state!"
It's SIMPLE just 10 minutes a day usually in the morning.
download: http://www.ziddu.com/download/11677954/SimpleMeditation.pdf.htmlDoes radiation from television or a computer effect your appearance?
The radiation coming out of it is pretty low and is harmless but using them too long can lead to restlessness which may be the cause of your skin looking dull ......
i hope not,i go on the laptop for over 6 hours a day 0_0
You will eventually look like Larry King.Does radiation from television or a computer effect your appearance?
Yes, they have some impact on you. But the impact can be lowered by doing meditation. If you don't know how to do meditation, refer this book, believe me it will change your life in to a beautiful one.
I'm saying this because "Your mental state can influence your body and your physical state!"
It's SIMPLE just 10 minutes a day usually in the morning.
download: http://www.ziddu.com/download/11677954/SimpleMeditation.pdf.htmlDoes radiation from television or a computer effect your appearance?
The radiation coming out of it is pretty low and is harmless but using them too long can lead to restlessness which may be the cause of your skin looking dull ......
i hope not,i go on the laptop for over 6 hours a day 0_0
What is the radiation level at the surface of Jupiter?
Jupiter has a large and strong magnetosphere. From my readings it looks like there is little to no radiation inside the magnetopause. What I'd like to find out is what the radiation level, in rads/hour is as at the Jovian surface (as defined by the radius at which the pressure is 1 atm). Even better would be the radiation level in rads/hour as a function of distance, say in the equitorial plane. Any websites with the information would be welcome too.What is the radiation level at the surface of Jupiter?
Can't answer your question, but I was all piqued to blow the whole thing away by telling you that Jupiter is a Gas Giant. And Gas Giants have no surface. But, since you defined the surface level as 1 earth atm (which isn't exactly congrous, since Jupiters dimension is literally 1000's of times greater than earths), I don't have a chance to do that.. Good luck on your search.
From what i have read we don't know. in order to get a good reading we would need to get a probe to the surface, there are two problems with that, we can't get a probe to the surface, it would just burn up in the atmosphere, and even if we could we couldn't get a radio signal back out of the atmosphere.What is the radiation level at the surface of Jupiter?
In any way it is less than Earths.
about 4,000 times stronger than the lethal dose.What is the radiation level at the surface of Jupiter?
Well If you are capable of taking the reading that you say you have taken then you already have your answer
Can't answer your question, but I was all piqued to blow the whole thing away by telling you that Jupiter is a Gas Giant. And Gas Giants have no surface. But, since you defined the surface level as 1 earth atm (which isn't exactly congrous, since Jupiters dimension is literally 1000's of times greater than earths), I don't have a chance to do that.. Good luck on your search.
From what i have read we don't know. in order to get a good reading we would need to get a probe to the surface, there are two problems with that, we can't get a probe to the surface, it would just burn up in the atmosphere, and even if we could we couldn't get a radio signal back out of the atmosphere.What is the radiation level at the surface of Jupiter?
In any way it is less than Earths.
about 4,000 times stronger than the lethal dose.What is the radiation level at the surface of Jupiter?
Well If you are capable of taking the reading that you say you have taken then you already have your answer
What is the best way to minimize the effects of radiation from cellphone use?
I understand that the further away the cellphone is from the body, the less exposure- but I was wondering if there is a difference between using the earplug %26amp; cable (that comes with the phone), or using a bluetooth. Is one option safer than the other? Which one most reduces the radiation exposure?What is the best way to minimize the effects of radiation from cellphone use?
only use for data, emergency calls and messages
.........v
Research by governments who want to sell the bandwidth to the operators says that there is no problem. Basically you are holding a microwave transmitter capable of quite a few watts close to the most sensitive part of your body. Would you put your head in a microwave oven and switch it on? No. Best to keep that antenna away. Research HAS shown that some cables can increase exposure due to things that are too complex to expain here. My advice: use Bluetooth as it is very low power and predictable.What is the best way to minimize the effects of radiation from cellphone use?
Yes, there is a difference between bluetooth earpiece vs cabled earpiece. Bluetooth ear piece is transmitting and receiving signals to your phone, therefore there is a radiation (very very small amount, the manual will tell you the amounts). Plus there is a battery running as well, which also produces heat and radiation. The cabled earpiece has non of those, it simply allows the voice to travel to your ear. Therefore cabled is the one with the least.
Research have shown that the radiation is almost non-existant, so it doesn't matter whether you are using earplug or cable, because even without using those you'd be safe.What is the best way to minimize the effects of radiation from cellphone use?
Best way? Don't use your cell phone like it's a lifeline.
only use for data, emergency calls and messages
.........v
Research by governments who want to sell the bandwidth to the operators says that there is no problem. Basically you are holding a microwave transmitter capable of quite a few watts close to the most sensitive part of your body. Would you put your head in a microwave oven and switch it on? No. Best to keep that antenna away. Research HAS shown that some cables can increase exposure due to things that are too complex to expain here. My advice: use Bluetooth as it is very low power and predictable.What is the best way to minimize the effects of radiation from cellphone use?
Yes, there is a difference between bluetooth earpiece vs cabled earpiece. Bluetooth ear piece is transmitting and receiving signals to your phone, therefore there is a radiation (very very small amount, the manual will tell you the amounts). Plus there is a battery running as well, which also produces heat and radiation. The cabled earpiece has non of those, it simply allows the voice to travel to your ear. Therefore cabled is the one with the least.
Research have shown that the radiation is almost non-existant, so it doesn't matter whether you are using earplug or cable, because even without using those you'd be safe.What is the best way to minimize the effects of radiation from cellphone use?
Best way? Don't use your cell phone like it's a lifeline.
What's the radiation situation in Japan currently and how might it escalate?
I was just wondering if anyone had a reliable source, or information, on the amounts of radiation and the level of danger in Japan right now. I've been searching the internet but can't find anything substantial or concrete. Reason is that I want to do international studies in Japan when I go to college and my mother is concerned about the safety of living in Japan after the earthquake and tsunami. What do you believe the situation will be like in the following years and does your evidence support it? If you could give some good sources with ethos it would be appreciated. Thank youWhat's the radiation situation in Japan currently and how might it escalate?
I believe it's limited to about a 20km area around the Fukushima nuke plant. They seem to have it under control at this time.
99%++ of Japan is safe. If it wasn't, it would be world wide news.
Strontium-90 has recently been discovered in Yokohama - 245 kilometers from the nuclear facility, despite the government saying that none had traveled beyond Shirakawa City, 79 km from the site. The government does not even plan to look for any beyond 80 km, which is probably why they did not find any!
Here are the details:
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/10/1鈥?/a>
The government has ordered telecommunications companies to censor reports which contradict the state media reports that the Fukushima nuclear radiation disaster is over: (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/04鈥?/a>
The level of radiation in the soil in the Shinjuku area of Tokyo this year is 200 times what it was for the previous 5 years.
http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/INET/OSHIRASE/鈥?/a> Japanese, I'm afraid)
So I would not be too optimistic and believe everything that the other people writing here have said. The official government position is that everything is fine and there is nothing to worry about, but more and more radioactivity is being discovered all the time.
Finally, here is a recent map of the radiation
http://savechild.net/archives/10056.html
Today October 12 they discovered a micro hotspot measuring 2.7渭Sv/h in Setagaya Tokyo. Which, if you do not know is extremely highWhat's the radiation situation in Japan currently and how might it escalate?
You can get radiation data from RadiationNetwork.
Originally, the radiation level in Japan was very low compared to other countries.
Even now, it is very low.
If you check the site, you can understand what I mentioned.
Even near the nuclear plant, the radiation level is about the same as NYC.
You can check radiation levels of these cities through RadiationNetwork.
I think you'd better worry about the influence of past nuclear experiments nuclear weapon states did before.
Check this radiation map.
http://www.asahi.com/national/update/100鈥?/a>What's the radiation situation in Japan currently and how might it escalate?
The vast majority of Japan is perfectly fine. There's a reason why you don't see it on CNN or international news much anymore, because after these news agencies sensationally predicted the end of the world, NOTHING Happened, there was no radiation cloud that killed everyone, and all these news agencies pulled out.
Earthquakes can happen anywhere anytime, the vast majority of earthquakes do not disrupt daily life at all, you do not even notice it. Tsunami's are a rare event as well, and do not affect major cities like Tokyo or Osaka.
You have a better chance of getting killed by a drunk driver in America. People are killed everyday because of drunk drivers in the USA.
Radiation levels:
Believe it or not, Tokyo has always had lower radiation levels. Places in the world like NEW YORK CITY have HIGHER amounts of radiation naturally occurring. You don't hear that on the sensationalism news do you? Of course all of this is in S A F E levels.
Recent Radiation Levels:
Tokyo 0.055 (uSv/h)
NewYork 0.094 (uSv/h)
Berlin 0.071-0.081 (uSv/h)
Hong Kong 0.08-0.14 (uSv/h)
Seoul 0.109 (uSv/h)
As you can see Japan (Tokyo) has the lowest amounts, other places just have naturally occurring higher levels, even if these numbers were increased 2x or even 3x it will still generally be safe.
There is no mass exodus of people, the Emperor, the Japanese government, the United States government and military continue to operate in places like Tokyo under NORMAL conditions.
If you think about it, if the radiation level was such a serious level, there would be a full scale evacuation of the embassies, the US embassador, the us military, the emperor, the prime minister of Japan, NONE OF THAT IS HAPPENING. Because things are NORMAL as normal can be.dickey s bbq auto parts stores
I believe it's limited to about a 20km area around the Fukushima nuke plant. They seem to have it under control at this time.
99%++ of Japan is safe. If it wasn't, it would be world wide news.
Strontium-90 has recently been discovered in Yokohama - 245 kilometers from the nuclear facility, despite the government saying that none had traveled beyond Shirakawa City, 79 km from the site. The government does not even plan to look for any beyond 80 km, which is probably why they did not find any!
Here are the details:
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/10/1鈥?/a>
The government has ordered telecommunications companies to censor reports which contradict the state media reports that the Fukushima nuclear radiation disaster is over: (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/04鈥?/a>
The level of radiation in the soil in the Shinjuku area of Tokyo this year is 200 times what it was for the previous 5 years.
http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/INET/OSHIRASE/鈥?/a> Japanese, I'm afraid)
So I would not be too optimistic and believe everything that the other people writing here have said. The official government position is that everything is fine and there is nothing to worry about, but more and more radioactivity is being discovered all the time.
Finally, here is a recent map of the radiation
http://savechild.net/archives/10056.html
Today October 12 they discovered a micro hotspot measuring 2.7渭Sv/h in Setagaya Tokyo. Which, if you do not know is extremely highWhat's the radiation situation in Japan currently and how might it escalate?
You can get radiation data from RadiationNetwork.
Originally, the radiation level in Japan was very low compared to other countries.
Even now, it is very low.
If you check the site, you can understand what I mentioned.
Even near the nuclear plant, the radiation level is about the same as NYC.
You can check radiation levels of these cities through RadiationNetwork.
I think you'd better worry about the influence of past nuclear experiments nuclear weapon states did before.
Check this radiation map.
http://www.asahi.com/national/update/100鈥?/a>What's the radiation situation in Japan currently and how might it escalate?
The vast majority of Japan is perfectly fine. There's a reason why you don't see it on CNN or international news much anymore, because after these news agencies sensationally predicted the end of the world, NOTHING Happened, there was no radiation cloud that killed everyone, and all these news agencies pulled out.
Earthquakes can happen anywhere anytime, the vast majority of earthquakes do not disrupt daily life at all, you do not even notice it. Tsunami's are a rare event as well, and do not affect major cities like Tokyo or Osaka.
You have a better chance of getting killed by a drunk driver in America. People are killed everyday because of drunk drivers in the USA.
Radiation levels:
Believe it or not, Tokyo has always had lower radiation levels. Places in the world like NEW YORK CITY have HIGHER amounts of radiation naturally occurring. You don't hear that on the sensationalism news do you? Of course all of this is in S A F E levels.
Recent Radiation Levels:
Tokyo 0.055 (uSv/h)
NewYork 0.094 (uSv/h)
Berlin 0.071-0.081 (uSv/h)
Hong Kong 0.08-0.14 (uSv/h)
Seoul 0.109 (uSv/h)
As you can see Japan (Tokyo) has the lowest amounts, other places just have naturally occurring higher levels, even if these numbers were increased 2x or even 3x it will still generally be safe.
There is no mass exodus of people, the Emperor, the Japanese government, the United States government and military continue to operate in places like Tokyo under NORMAL conditions.
If you think about it, if the radiation level was such a serious level, there would be a full scale evacuation of the embassies, the US embassador, the us military, the emperor, the prime minister of Japan, NONE OF THAT IS HAPPENING. Because things are NORMAL as normal can be.
What is the long term side effects of chemo and radiation therapy after total gastronomy surgery?
My brother had a surgery 8 months ago to remove the entire stomach after diagnoised stomach cancer after the surgery he had a combination of chemo and radiation therapy , he finished about 3 months ago, and he made CT it was free , now he start to suffer from neck and back pains , some times hard swallowing and stomach pain , is that noraml long term side effects and what the best way of treat that, his next check will come after 1 monthWhat is the long term side effects of chemo and radiation therapy after total gastronomy surgery?
Hello, i have had also had a complete gasterectomy, a partial pancretectomy and a spleenectomy due to a gastrointestinal stromel tumor so i understand what your brother is going through. If you need some perspective on what i went through, and what i did to help myself(mind you a doctor is always first consulted) please go to http://www.positivecancer.com The posts under mystory explain what i've been through, but i think that quite a few of the posts related to diet, exercise might be of help.
the stomach and swallowing pains are very very normal, and mine lasted for some time. His doctor as probably already informed him about dumping syndrome, but if not ask about it. I know that for me i had to relearn how to eat smaller portions, and i still(3 years) cannot eat and drink at the same time. For the first while i would suggest he separate eating and drinking by an hour. Everything else you have said is normal, and with the neck and back pains, make sure that it's not any kind of pleural iffusion(its an infection) because i had that also. Complications after serious surgury and chemo are very very common, but hang in there, and tell your brother the same. Check out the website, and you can of course, email me directly or through the site if you have any more questions. Good Luck.What is the long term side effects of chemo and radiation therapy after total gastronomy surgery?
When my father was undergoing radiation for lung cancer, he was also going to a naturalpath... the naturalpath gave him a drop that reduces the long term side effects of the radiation. Apparently in 10 to 15 years the radiation can cause leukemia...and another type of cancer.What is the long term side effects of chemo and radiation therapy after total gastronomy surgery?
That is a really good question! I don't think there are any real studies on long term effects on these aggressive treatment methods (because they are usually a last resort to fight off malicous diseases).
I didn't know that it was possible to remove the entire stomach. But I believe the majority of stomach cancers originate in other parts of the body, hence its a metastized cancer (spread out into the body), those are more difficult to treat. He may want to get checked earlier than his scheduled appointment, since those pains and problems in other areas could be the new onset tumors.
Hello, i have had also had a complete gasterectomy, a partial pancretectomy and a spleenectomy due to a gastrointestinal stromel tumor so i understand what your brother is going through. If you need some perspective on what i went through, and what i did to help myself(mind you a doctor is always first consulted) please go to http://www.positivecancer.com The posts under mystory explain what i've been through, but i think that quite a few of the posts related to diet, exercise might be of help.
the stomach and swallowing pains are very very normal, and mine lasted for some time. His doctor as probably already informed him about dumping syndrome, but if not ask about it. I know that for me i had to relearn how to eat smaller portions, and i still(3 years) cannot eat and drink at the same time. For the first while i would suggest he separate eating and drinking by an hour. Everything else you have said is normal, and with the neck and back pains, make sure that it's not any kind of pleural iffusion(its an infection) because i had that also. Complications after serious surgury and chemo are very very common, but hang in there, and tell your brother the same. Check out the website, and you can of course, email me directly or through the site if you have any more questions. Good Luck.What is the long term side effects of chemo and radiation therapy after total gastronomy surgery?
When my father was undergoing radiation for lung cancer, he was also going to a naturalpath... the naturalpath gave him a drop that reduces the long term side effects of the radiation. Apparently in 10 to 15 years the radiation can cause leukemia...and another type of cancer.What is the long term side effects of chemo and radiation therapy after total gastronomy surgery?
That is a really good question! I don't think there are any real studies on long term effects on these aggressive treatment methods (because they are usually a last resort to fight off malicous diseases).
I didn't know that it was possible to remove the entire stomach. But I believe the majority of stomach cancers originate in other parts of the body, hence its a metastized cancer (spread out into the body), those are more difficult to treat. He may want to get checked earlier than his scheduled appointment, since those pains and problems in other areas could be the new onset tumors.
What time will the radiation of the Computer Can Penetrate and destroy our eyes?
I am concern in the radiation of the monitor , Dont know what is the negative effects ,What time will the radiation of the Computer Can Penetrate and destroy our eyes?
Short and simple: If you stare at the screen for long periods of time.
Your eyes have water.
Radiation evaporates water.
Once the water in your eyes has evaporated enough, then the radiation will penetrate and damage your eyes.
It's not easy to repair.
I hope I helped.What time will the radiation of the Computer Can Penetrate and destroy our eyes?
Like NEVER. If you're that concerned, why are you using one to ask the question. Duh.What time will the radiation of the Computer Can Penetrate and destroy our eyes?
after an hour?your not supposed to stay on the computer?more
than an hour?because after an hour?the radiation from thhe computer can damage your system?and it is irreversible?
cinderellamirage
Short and simple: If you stare at the screen for long periods of time.
Your eyes have water.
Radiation evaporates water.
Once the water in your eyes has evaporated enough, then the radiation will penetrate and damage your eyes.
It's not easy to repair.
I hope I helped.What time will the radiation of the Computer Can Penetrate and destroy our eyes?
Like NEVER. If you're that concerned, why are you using one to ask the question. Duh.What time will the radiation of the Computer Can Penetrate and destroy our eyes?
after an hour?your not supposed to stay on the computer?more
than an hour?because after an hour?the radiation from thhe computer can damage your system?and it is irreversible?
cinderellamirage
What do you call the people to works with the radiation in the hospitals?
What is the job title you give to the people who work with the radiation equipment and make sure there the right doses in hospitals?What do you call the people to works with the radiation in the hospitals?
Radiologist maybe...?
Radiologist maybe...?
What were the units of light energy emitted by blackbody radiation originally called?
What were the units of light energy emitted by blackbody radiation originally called?
A. electron volts
B. quanta
C. joules
D. resonators
PLEASE explain your answer so I can follow you. Thanks to all. All help is grealty appreciated. =)What were the units of light energy emitted by blackbody radiation originally called?
b
A. electron volts
B. quanta
C. joules
D. resonators
PLEASE explain your answer so I can follow you. Thanks to all. All help is grealty appreciated. =)What were the units of light energy emitted by blackbody radiation originally called?
b
What is the minimum kinetic energy on an electron traveling in crown glass to create Cerenkov Radiation?
What is the minimum kinetic energy (in keV) an electron must have while traveling inside a slab of crown glass (n = 1.52) in order to create Cerenkov Radiation?What is the minimum kinetic energy on an electron traveling in crown glass to create Cerenkov Radiation?
When a charged particle travels faster than the speed of light in a certain medium, then there is a release of energy in the form of "shock waves". For light, these shock waves are the Cerenkov radiation of which you ask. Perhaps it goes without saying that in a vacuum, no such radiation is possible, because n%26gt;1 for v%26gt;c.
For n=1.52, the speed of light is c (vacuum)/n (index of refraction).
V (light) in crown glass is = 1.97 E 8 m/s = .658c
We need our electron to have this velocity, and need to account for the relativistic mass...
m=m(rest)/SQRT((1-(v^2/c^2)) =
1.33m(rest) = 1.21E-30 kg
K.E. = 1/2 mv^2 = 2.36 E-14 J = 147keV (to three sig. figs.)
-Fredlounges english to arabic translation
When a charged particle travels faster than the speed of light in a certain medium, then there is a release of energy in the form of "shock waves". For light, these shock waves are the Cerenkov radiation of which you ask. Perhaps it goes without saying that in a vacuum, no such radiation is possible, because n%26gt;1 for v%26gt;c.
For n=1.52, the speed of light is c (vacuum)/n (index of refraction).
V (light) in crown glass is = 1.97 E 8 m/s = .658c
We need our electron to have this velocity, and need to account for the relativistic mass...
m=m(rest)/SQRT((1-(v^2/c^2)) =
1.33m(rest) = 1.21E-30 kg
K.E. = 1/2 mv^2 = 2.36 E-14 J = 147keV (to three sig. figs.)
-Fred
What is the minimum kinetic energy on an electron traveling in crown glass to create Cerenkov Radiation?
What is the minimum kinetic energy (in keV) an electron must have while traveling inside a slab of crown glass (n = 1.52) in order to create Cerenkov Radiation?What is the minimum kinetic energy on an electron traveling in crown glass to create Cerenkov Radiation?
When a charged particle travels faster than the speed of light in a certain medium, then there is a release of energy in the form of "shock waves". For light, these shock waves are the Cerenkov radiation of which you ask. Perhaps it goes without saying that in a vacuum, no such radiation is possible, because n%26gt;1 for v%26gt;c.
For n=1.52, the speed of light is c (vacuum)/n (index of refraction).
V (light) in crown glass is = 1.97 E 8 m/s = .658c
We need our electron to have this velocity, and need to account for the relativistic mass...
m=m(rest)/SQRT((1-(v^2/c^2)) =
1.33m(rest) = 1.21E-30 kg
K.E. = 1/2 mv^2 = 2.36 E-14 J = 147keV (to three sig. figs.)
-Fred
When a charged particle travels faster than the speed of light in a certain medium, then there is a release of energy in the form of "shock waves". For light, these shock waves are the Cerenkov radiation of which you ask. Perhaps it goes without saying that in a vacuum, no such radiation is possible, because n%26gt;1 for v%26gt;c.
For n=1.52, the speed of light is c (vacuum)/n (index of refraction).
V (light) in crown glass is = 1.97 E 8 m/s = .658c
We need our electron to have this velocity, and need to account for the relativistic mass...
m=m(rest)/SQRT((1-(v^2/c^2)) =
1.33m(rest) = 1.21E-30 kg
K.E. = 1/2 mv^2 = 2.36 E-14 J = 147keV (to three sig. figs.)
-Fred
What is it like to be a Radiation Therapist? Would I be able to handle it?
I've been very interested in Radiation Therapy as my main career choice lately. However, my mom doesn't believe it's a good idea because it would be a tough job emotionally. I'm a very caring and loving person so I feel like if I brought the right kind of energy to the table the patient would stay calm and relax. Am I looking at this all wrong? Could anyone fill me in on what it's like to be a Radiation Therapist and what you go through on a day-to-day basis?What is it like to be a Radiation Therapist? Would I be able to handle it?
My father was a radiation therapist, an oncologist, M.D. I assume you want to be a radiation technician and administer the radiation treatments. I was the tech for my dad and can tell you there is a lot of physics, atomic physics, nuclear physics and dosimetry which is calculating the amount of radiation delivered to get the desired affect even though the physician will actually do that. I worked for him for seven years, and here is what you can expect: You will make a decent living but you will see the death experience so many times, it can be depressing. Knowing that you will be a big part of the lives of the patient and their families and can provide laughter, comfort and expert care and be the one who makes a difference is great like you said. They will look to you for support, care and reassurance. Since people get radiation therapy over a period of weeks and sometimes months as new sites appear, you will gt to know the and their families very well. You will see them get bad news and cry with them, and you will rejoice with them when things improve. You will know these things before they do and not be able to say so. You will make new friends who bestow love and God's blessings on you and be remembered hopefully as someone who made the whole thing easier for everybody. I have a lot of fond memories and still keep in touch with some of the younger patients I helped through their illness. And I can still remember the 19yr old girl with ovarian cancer whose boyfriend left her and how her mother cried with anguish.(She recovered and is happily married.) It's like being part of a book or movie and much more intense than jobs outside the medical field. You could also consider nuclear med tech and just regular x-ray tech , but my guess is you would be perfect. Day to day could be different in a big hospital where several techs do the work. I was in an office with the accelerator right there which is unusual. Also, if you are unattached, you could meet others in the medical field and find the man of your dreams.Your mom wants to protect you which is normal, but tell her she instilled in you the right qualities to make a difference in the world, and that you will make her proud. Keep a journal, and write a book when you retire. If you have any more questions, I'm here.:)
My father was a radiation therapist, an oncologist, M.D. I assume you want to be a radiation technician and administer the radiation treatments. I was the tech for my dad and can tell you there is a lot of physics, atomic physics, nuclear physics and dosimetry which is calculating the amount of radiation delivered to get the desired affect even though the physician will actually do that. I worked for him for seven years, and here is what you can expect: You will make a decent living but you will see the death experience so many times, it can be depressing. Knowing that you will be a big part of the lives of the patient and their families and can provide laughter, comfort and expert care and be the one who makes a difference is great like you said. They will look to you for support, care and reassurance. Since people get radiation therapy over a period of weeks and sometimes months as new sites appear, you will gt to know the and their families very well. You will see them get bad news and cry with them, and you will rejoice with them when things improve. You will know these things before they do and not be able to say so. You will make new friends who bestow love and God's blessings on you and be remembered hopefully as someone who made the whole thing easier for everybody. I have a lot of fond memories and still keep in touch with some of the younger patients I helped through their illness. And I can still remember the 19yr old girl with ovarian cancer whose boyfriend left her and how her mother cried with anguish.(She recovered and is happily married.) It's like being part of a book or movie and much more intense than jobs outside the medical field. You could also consider nuclear med tech and just regular x-ray tech , but my guess is you would be perfect. Day to day could be different in a big hospital where several techs do the work. I was in an office with the accelerator right there which is unusual. Also, if you are unattached, you could meet others in the medical field and find the man of your dreams.Your mom wants to protect you which is normal, but tell her she instilled in you the right qualities to make a difference in the world, and that you will make her proud. Keep a journal, and write a book when you retire. If you have any more questions, I'm here.:)
Is radiation really as harmful as most believe it is?
I have researched this a little and I have found different articles and websites on both sides of the argument. Some say that radiation is really bad and very harmful and others say that radiation isn't bad as we think it is and that the nuclear plants aren't as scary as people make them out to be. What is your opinion on this?Is radiation really as harmful as most believe it is?
The best way to think about risk is to compare it it something.
The nuclear power plants in Japan, were hit by the 5th worse earthquake in history; where hit by a tsunami 8 meters higher than the designers ever expected and had a complete break down of society around it so problems could not be quickly fixed. Further more, we have found that safety procedures at the plant were handled poorly for years.
This sounds like the recipe for a scale one major disaster, right?
NO ONE has got a fatal dose of radiation. NO ONE has even got radiation sickness. A few people might get cancer 30 years from now. Yet, on the news reports, they keep talking about the nuclear reactors and giving them more air time than the 20,000+ people killed in the earthquake. People are calling for all nuclear power plant (including the safer 4th generation designs on the drawing boards) to be shut down forever.
In China the Banqiao dam on the Ru river burst in 1975 and up to 230,000 people were killed. Why are people not calling for a complete ban hydroelectric power? Why did that disaster get less media frenzy than this nuclear non-disaster in Japan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Coal power plants release more radiation to the environment than nuclear power plants. In addition they produce thousands of tonnes of toxic waste, fly ash, acid rain, scrubber sludge, tonnes of coal tar, they put heavy metals into the environment, are a source of acid mine drainage, pump millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide (which cause global warming) into the air. The largest single source of mercury contamination world wide is coal. In the USA alone, more than 2,000 stream miles of rivers have been blighted by coal. Compared to burying a cubic meter of radioactive waste a year a coal power plant has the REAL waste disposal problem.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2006/10/coal-ch鈥?/a>
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/鈥?/a>
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl鈥?/a>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment鈥?/a>
To summarize the links above, we would have to have a Chernobyl twice a week for the nuclear industry to kill as many people as coal. This is not counting future deaths by global warming.
Other 'safe' energy sources have ecological downsides. The damming of the Columbia river for hydro-electric power has devastated the local salmon runs. This has removed the major source of nitrogen in the area (bears eat salmon and poop the nitrate rich results) which has badly hurt the forest's bio-diversity.
Anyway, I doubt anyone's opinion will be changed by a post in Yahoo Answers, but my point is that when worrying about radiation, the dangers should be kept in perspective. If you are worried about radiation from nuclear power plants, what are the costs of other base load power?
Radiation CAN be harmful. Most people who work at nuclear plants suffer long-term effects such as cancer. Or at least that's how it used to be. Power plants are a lot safer now, however a meltdown could still occur, releasing radioactive substances around the affected area. Atomic bombs on the other hand are a lot more deadly when it comes to radiation. They will unleash UV, X-ray, and gamma radiation in all directions, as well as nuclear fallout which lingers after the explosion. Whether radiation is harmful or not depends on these factors:
-The amount of radiation you're exposed to
-The amount of time you're exposed to the radiation
-And finally, how much cellular damage the radiation does to you.
If your DNA alters in a vital segment that controls an important cellular function, and if that cell happens to survive, you might have a future tumor to deal with (or worse). Radiation typically has the worst effect on infants, considering how often their cells divide. It could also mutate sex cells, causing an abnormal fetal growth upon sexual reproduction.Is radiation really as harmful as most believe it is?
As a doctor, I had to care to patients with radiation burns post therapy.
The burns are as if the skin was ironed with an electric iron. It appears slowly, weeks after the radiation, but causes a kind of ulceration in the worst case.
Radiation causes internal injuries too and can be fatal in high doses.
Those directly working heroically to prevent dangerous leaks from the Japanese nuclear plants have already received severe burns, as we saw on TV. One thanks them for sacrificing their lives to save the others.
The problem is that the sites you look at not only muddle with a lot of opinions and panic but also muddle different kinds of radiation in different circumstances.
As several people have said, properly operating nuclear plants do not emit radiation although they produce radioactive waste products (like the rods in storage that produced the hydrogen fires)
But on the other hand, we are constantly exposed to different kinds of radiation from natural source, so that when someone panics over increased iodine in rain fall, they usually fail to include the information that it is only double what is there every day and will go away at that level in a few days, leaving the background.
There are three kinds of radiation from radioactivity and one won't go through a piece of paper (alpha)
Severe radiation is dangerous but most people have no chance of encountering it as they do not handle or even work in the area of intense radioactive materials.
Continuing contact with moderate to low levels of radiation, such as radon in homes, is subject to the greatest debate because some people demand that no level at all is acceptable. But this is like people with varying ability to throw off infections being told that all levels of colds and coughing must be banned from the office, school or even street.Is radiation really as harmful as most believe it is?
"Radiation" and "nuclear power", are two very different things.
Ionising radiation can be extremely dangerous if you don't know what you're doing, but safety procedures exist for dealing with it (it can't go through thick walls). You also need to get quite a high radiation dose for anything bad to happen. Small amounts of radiation do very little, but a high dose can kill you very easily.
Nuclear power is another matter entirely. If the relevant safety procedures are followed, it's normally all right, although if not, things can get very interesting. A well-run plant produces no radiation damage at all.
Nuclear power is great so long as it's contained. But as soon as something like what's happening in japan currently. If the plant in japan actually melts down were going to have massive problems occur I'm the US when the fallout hits us. I have never heard of an argument pro radiation other than the limited medical uses it has. Radiation is very deadly, our soldiers are using ammo/bombs "enhanced" with depleted uranium, leading to childbearing issues for them, as well as for the people in the middle east. Look that one up.
you're talking about two different issues here, radiation effects and the safety of nuclear power.
No, it is not.
Radiation is a class of energetic particles, there are MANY types of radiation including electromagnetic as example of non-ionizing radiation (doesn't produce ions when passing through matter). Alpha, beta, gamma and X-ray are examples of Ionizing radiation.
Radiation is far far far too complex to describe in a yahoo answer, but to answer your question on how harmful it is, I can summarize some important points:
Radiation of the electromagnetic class includes (in decreasing order of wavelength) radio waves, infrared (may be harmful to eyes), visible light, ultraviolet (harmful to skin), X-Ray (high exposure harmful to entire body) and Gamma radiation which is deadly in moderate exposure. These types of radiation are modeled as waves rather than particles.
With regard to nuclear radiation we have 3 main types to be concerned with, alpha, beta and gamma (as mentioned earlier).
Alpha radiation is composed of large particles (He nuclei) and cannot penetrate anything thicker than standard paper, therefore it is perfectly safe to take a bath in the stuff, as long as it doesn't get inside you. If you swallow it, you're as good as dead.
Beta radiation is much smaller in comparison (electron). It can be stopped by a thin sheet of aluminium, so it damages your body if you're around it, but is easy to contain in the case of nuclear reactions.
Gamma radiation as mentioned in EM is VERY penetrating. It requires a few feet of lead to stop gamma radiation leaking from a reactor, on the other hand, it doesn't interact with matter nearly as easily as alpha or beta, so unless the levels are high, you're probably going to be okay.
The amount of harm really depends on how MUCH radiation there is. If you're standing by a nuclear reactor and it's leaking insane amounts of alpha radiation, you'll be fine, if the radiation is beta, not so good for you, but if its Gamma, you're as good as dead. As far as nuclear reactor concerns go, the main issue is that the radioactive substances could cling to dust in the atmosphere and spread through the wind, causing radioactive dust to spread around the world. Since the material used in the reactor cores are insanely radioactive, this would be VERY bad. I think Japan is in quite a bit of trouble right now though!
Radiation is a fascinating topic, and if you want to learn, pick up any physics text book and have a read of the radiation chapters, Advanced Physics by Steve Adams and Jonathan Allday is particularly useful, and got me top marks in my exams :)
The best way to think about risk is to compare it it something.
The nuclear power plants in Japan, were hit by the 5th worse earthquake in history; where hit by a tsunami 8 meters higher than the designers ever expected and had a complete break down of society around it so problems could not be quickly fixed. Further more, we have found that safety procedures at the plant were handled poorly for years.
This sounds like the recipe for a scale one major disaster, right?
NO ONE has got a fatal dose of radiation. NO ONE has even got radiation sickness. A few people might get cancer 30 years from now. Yet, on the news reports, they keep talking about the nuclear reactors and giving them more air time than the 20,000+ people killed in the earthquake. People are calling for all nuclear power plant (including the safer 4th generation designs on the drawing boards) to be shut down forever.
In China the Banqiao dam on the Ru river burst in 1975 and up to 230,000 people were killed. Why are people not calling for a complete ban hydroelectric power? Why did that disaster get less media frenzy than this nuclear non-disaster in Japan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Coal power plants release more radiation to the environment than nuclear power plants. In addition they produce thousands of tonnes of toxic waste, fly ash, acid rain, scrubber sludge, tonnes of coal tar, they put heavy metals into the environment, are a source of acid mine drainage, pump millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide (which cause global warming) into the air. The largest single source of mercury contamination world wide is coal. In the USA alone, more than 2,000 stream miles of rivers have been blighted by coal. Compared to burying a cubic meter of radioactive waste a year a coal power plant has the REAL waste disposal problem.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2006/10/coal-ch鈥?/a>
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/鈥?/a>
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl鈥?/a>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment鈥?/a>
To summarize the links above, we would have to have a Chernobyl twice a week for the nuclear industry to kill as many people as coal. This is not counting future deaths by global warming.
Other 'safe' energy sources have ecological downsides. The damming of the Columbia river for hydro-electric power has devastated the local salmon runs. This has removed the major source of nitrogen in the area (bears eat salmon and poop the nitrate rich results) which has badly hurt the forest's bio-diversity.
Anyway, I doubt anyone's opinion will be changed by a post in Yahoo Answers, but my point is that when worrying about radiation, the dangers should be kept in perspective. If you are worried about radiation from nuclear power plants, what are the costs of other base load power?
Radiation CAN be harmful. Most people who work at nuclear plants suffer long-term effects such as cancer. Or at least that's how it used to be. Power plants are a lot safer now, however a meltdown could still occur, releasing radioactive substances around the affected area. Atomic bombs on the other hand are a lot more deadly when it comes to radiation. They will unleash UV, X-ray, and gamma radiation in all directions, as well as nuclear fallout which lingers after the explosion. Whether radiation is harmful or not depends on these factors:
-The amount of radiation you're exposed to
-The amount of time you're exposed to the radiation
-And finally, how much cellular damage the radiation does to you.
If your DNA alters in a vital segment that controls an important cellular function, and if that cell happens to survive, you might have a future tumor to deal with (or worse). Radiation typically has the worst effect on infants, considering how often their cells divide. It could also mutate sex cells, causing an abnormal fetal growth upon sexual reproduction.Is radiation really as harmful as most believe it is?
As a doctor, I had to care to patients with radiation burns post therapy.
The burns are as if the skin was ironed with an electric iron. It appears slowly, weeks after the radiation, but causes a kind of ulceration in the worst case.
Radiation causes internal injuries too and can be fatal in high doses.
Those directly working heroically to prevent dangerous leaks from the Japanese nuclear plants have already received severe burns, as we saw on TV. One thanks them for sacrificing their lives to save the others.
The problem is that the sites you look at not only muddle with a lot of opinions and panic but also muddle different kinds of radiation in different circumstances.
As several people have said, properly operating nuclear plants do not emit radiation although they produce radioactive waste products (like the rods in storage that produced the hydrogen fires)
But on the other hand, we are constantly exposed to different kinds of radiation from natural source, so that when someone panics over increased iodine in rain fall, they usually fail to include the information that it is only double what is there every day and will go away at that level in a few days, leaving the background.
There are three kinds of radiation from radioactivity and one won't go through a piece of paper (alpha)
Severe radiation is dangerous but most people have no chance of encountering it as they do not handle or even work in the area of intense radioactive materials.
Continuing contact with moderate to low levels of radiation, such as radon in homes, is subject to the greatest debate because some people demand that no level at all is acceptable. But this is like people with varying ability to throw off infections being told that all levels of colds and coughing must be banned from the office, school or even street.Is radiation really as harmful as most believe it is?
"Radiation" and "nuclear power", are two very different things.
Ionising radiation can be extremely dangerous if you don't know what you're doing, but safety procedures exist for dealing with it (it can't go through thick walls). You also need to get quite a high radiation dose for anything bad to happen. Small amounts of radiation do very little, but a high dose can kill you very easily.
Nuclear power is another matter entirely. If the relevant safety procedures are followed, it's normally all right, although if not, things can get very interesting. A well-run plant produces no radiation damage at all.
Nuclear power is great so long as it's contained. But as soon as something like what's happening in japan currently. If the plant in japan actually melts down were going to have massive problems occur I'm the US when the fallout hits us. I have never heard of an argument pro radiation other than the limited medical uses it has. Radiation is very deadly, our soldiers are using ammo/bombs "enhanced" with depleted uranium, leading to childbearing issues for them, as well as for the people in the middle east. Look that one up.
you're talking about two different issues here, radiation effects and the safety of nuclear power.
No, it is not.
Radiation is a class of energetic particles, there are MANY types of radiation including electromagnetic as example of non-ionizing radiation (doesn't produce ions when passing through matter). Alpha, beta, gamma and X-ray are examples of Ionizing radiation.
Radiation is far far far too complex to describe in a yahoo answer, but to answer your question on how harmful it is, I can summarize some important points:
Radiation of the electromagnetic class includes (in decreasing order of wavelength) radio waves, infrared (may be harmful to eyes), visible light, ultraviolet (harmful to skin), X-Ray (high exposure harmful to entire body) and Gamma radiation which is deadly in moderate exposure. These types of radiation are modeled as waves rather than particles.
With regard to nuclear radiation we have 3 main types to be concerned with, alpha, beta and gamma (as mentioned earlier).
Alpha radiation is composed of large particles (He nuclei) and cannot penetrate anything thicker than standard paper, therefore it is perfectly safe to take a bath in the stuff, as long as it doesn't get inside you. If you swallow it, you're as good as dead.
Beta radiation is much smaller in comparison (electron). It can be stopped by a thin sheet of aluminium, so it damages your body if you're around it, but is easy to contain in the case of nuclear reactions.
Gamma radiation as mentioned in EM is VERY penetrating. It requires a few feet of lead to stop gamma radiation leaking from a reactor, on the other hand, it doesn't interact with matter nearly as easily as alpha or beta, so unless the levels are high, you're probably going to be okay.
The amount of harm really depends on how MUCH radiation there is. If you're standing by a nuclear reactor and it's leaking insane amounts of alpha radiation, you'll be fine, if the radiation is beta, not so good for you, but if its Gamma, you're as good as dead. As far as nuclear reactor concerns go, the main issue is that the radioactive substances could cling to dust in the atmosphere and spread through the wind, causing radioactive dust to spread around the world. Since the material used in the reactor cores are insanely radioactive, this would be VERY bad. I think Japan is in quite a bit of trouble right now though!
Radiation is a fascinating topic, and if you want to learn, pick up any physics text book and have a read of the radiation chapters, Advanced Physics by Steve Adams and Jonathan Allday is particularly useful, and got me top marks in my exams :)
What causes background radiation to vary?
Stuff:
- How radioactive nuclei is produced
- Radiation in different parts of UK
PLEASE write in your sources. 10 points for best answer!What causes background radiation to vary?
Non-uniform distribution (caused by conditions present in the formation of the Earth) of radioactive sources in the crust.What causes background radiation to vary?
The Radiation Protection Division (RPD) of the Health Protection Agency (HPA) is the place to go for information about radiation in the UK. They used to be called the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB).
Actually, having now gone and visited their site to look for links to give you, it seems that they don't have all the useful NRPB pamphlets available for download and they haven't yet replaced them with new HPA-RPD ones.
There is one on Radon:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb%26amp;HPAweb鈥?/a>
And you can download HPA-RPD-001 which was a 2005 review of ionising radiation exposure to the UK population. It runs to about 110 pages.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb%26amp;HPAweb鈥?/a>
- How radioactive nuclei is produced
- Radiation in different parts of UK
PLEASE write in your sources. 10 points for best answer!What causes background radiation to vary?
Non-uniform distribution (caused by conditions present in the formation of the Earth) of radioactive sources in the crust.What causes background radiation to vary?
The Radiation Protection Division (RPD) of the Health Protection Agency (HPA) is the place to go for information about radiation in the UK. They used to be called the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB).
Actually, having now gone and visited their site to look for links to give you, it seems that they don't have all the useful NRPB pamphlets available for download and they haven't yet replaced them with new HPA-RPD ones.
There is one on Radon:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb%26amp;HPAweb鈥?/a>
And you can download HPA-RPD-001 which was a 2005 review of ionising radiation exposure to the UK population. It runs to about 110 pages.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb%26amp;HPAweb鈥?/a>
What types of radiation are emitted by laptops?
What types of radiation are emitted by laptops?
I always lay in bed with my laptop everyday for hours. I've done this for years. and my laptop is always positioned on my lower stomach. Is this harmful?What types of radiation are emitted by laptops?
Using a laptop or LCD does not exclude you from the negative health affects of computer radiation. All computer monitors emit low levels of radiation. Laptops and LCD monitors emit less radiation than the old-fashioned CRT monitors. However, all monitors emit enough radiation to affect your health and appearance.
A healthy solution is to use a computer accessory called a radiation filter. This product will eliminate 94-99% of the harmful radiation emitted from your computer screen. Radiation filters are available for all types of computer monitors, and they work well to protect you from radiation.
From tech standpoint, I would be more concerned with using your computer in bed and it not being able to "breathe" because of sheets blocking air vents, etc. There are many stands available for purchase.What types of radiation are emitted by laptops?
Just EMI radiation, and these days, not much. I had a desktop from 1991, and have a laptop from 1993. Both produce a symphony of noise when an AM radio is placed near them. But, modern computers produce far fewer emissions. The power bricks tend to be rather noisy, still, but the PCs are pretty quiet.
As for the effects of EMI, most scientists say it's harmful, but some heterodox doctors blame them for just about every ailment. On another note, they claim all the wiring in your home has the same effect, too.
UPDATE:
Compudude's source is malarky. We take in about 300 milirem of radiation from background radiation, mostly from the sun. A properly built (read: not a 1960's color tube-type) color CRT shouldn't add more than like ten milirem, and an LCD would have to emit negligible dosages that don't even merit measurement.What types of radiation are emitted by laptops?
Computer Radiation
Studies show that long-term exposure to radiation increases the risk of all forms of cancer, tumors, blood disorders, miscarriage, headaches, insomnia, anxiety, aging of the skin, skin burn, etc.
Radiation exposure over time can cause skin burn, dry wrinkled skin and photo aging. This skin damage is identical to sun damage and causes the same health problems. Many electronic products that we use on a daily basis expose us to harmful radiation.
A television, microwave oven, cellular phone and computer are examples of products that emit radiation. To preserve your health use electronic products carefully, in ways that shield your body from radiation.
Computer radiation is most harmful to skin health because we sit directly in front of the computer for long periods of time with our face absorbing the radiation. Lessening this type of harmful radiation is important.
Computer radiation can make you feel sick and burn your skin. Most people are not aware of this, and continue to suffer with ill health they have no explanation for. They do not realize sometimes ill health is related to computer use.
Using a laptop or LCD does not exclude you from the negative health affects of computer radiation. All computer monitors emit low levels of radiation. Laptops and LCD monitors emit less radiation than the old-fashioned CRT monitors. However, all monitors emit enough radiation to affect your health and appearance.
A healthy solution is to use a computer accessory called a radiation filter. This product will eliminate 94-99% of the harmful radiation emitted from your computer screen. Radiation filters are available for all types of computer monitors, and they work well to protect you from radiation.
It is also helpful to move the processor tower as far away from your body as possible. This will reduce radiation that could reach and affect your body.
The negative health effects of computer radiation are a well-known topic. There is much research on the web that explains its health hazards. But unfortunately, it is also a much avoided subject. Most people do not realize the harm that radiation can cause to the human body, even at low levels. It is also not a widely advertised problem because it would negatively affect industry and the economy as a whole.
By law, there are basic health and safety requirements that manufacturers must meet for electronic products. Many manufacturers today are improving products to emit less radiation, and great technological improvements have been made in the last five years alone. Be health smart and research any electronic product before you buy to make sure it emits low radiation.
Most industry standard computer monitors do comply with low radiation guidelines. However, low radiation does not mean zero radiation. Computer radiation levels are still allowed to be high enough to cause health problems.
It is very important to use products that emit low radiation, and shield radiation emissions. Following this simple advice can help to preserve your health and well being.
also see:
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/green-g鈥?/a>
http://sharingimproves.blogspot.com/2008鈥?/a>
I hope this helps. good luck to you.
I shouldn't think this is that harm full. It would be more likely you were to be harmed by something natural before you die of laptop radiation. As far as I am aware they also use laptops in nuclear power stations and things so it wouldn't be that power full.toronto dcu center
I always lay in bed with my laptop everyday for hours. I've done this for years. and my laptop is always positioned on my lower stomach. Is this harmful?What types of radiation are emitted by laptops?
Using a laptop or LCD does not exclude you from the negative health affects of computer radiation. All computer monitors emit low levels of radiation. Laptops and LCD monitors emit less radiation than the old-fashioned CRT monitors. However, all monitors emit enough radiation to affect your health and appearance.
A healthy solution is to use a computer accessory called a radiation filter. This product will eliminate 94-99% of the harmful radiation emitted from your computer screen. Radiation filters are available for all types of computer monitors, and they work well to protect you from radiation.
From tech standpoint, I would be more concerned with using your computer in bed and it not being able to "breathe" because of sheets blocking air vents, etc. There are many stands available for purchase.What types of radiation are emitted by laptops?
Just EMI radiation, and these days, not much. I had a desktop from 1991, and have a laptop from 1993. Both produce a symphony of noise when an AM radio is placed near them. But, modern computers produce far fewer emissions. The power bricks tend to be rather noisy, still, but the PCs are pretty quiet.
As for the effects of EMI, most scientists say it's harmful, but some heterodox doctors blame them for just about every ailment. On another note, they claim all the wiring in your home has the same effect, too.
UPDATE:
Compudude's source is malarky. We take in about 300 milirem of radiation from background radiation, mostly from the sun. A properly built (read: not a 1960's color tube-type) color CRT shouldn't add more than like ten milirem, and an LCD would have to emit negligible dosages that don't even merit measurement.What types of radiation are emitted by laptops?
Computer Radiation
Studies show that long-term exposure to radiation increases the risk of all forms of cancer, tumors, blood disorders, miscarriage, headaches, insomnia, anxiety, aging of the skin, skin burn, etc.
Radiation exposure over time can cause skin burn, dry wrinkled skin and photo aging. This skin damage is identical to sun damage and causes the same health problems. Many electronic products that we use on a daily basis expose us to harmful radiation.
A television, microwave oven, cellular phone and computer are examples of products that emit radiation. To preserve your health use electronic products carefully, in ways that shield your body from radiation.
Computer radiation is most harmful to skin health because we sit directly in front of the computer for long periods of time with our face absorbing the radiation. Lessening this type of harmful radiation is important.
Computer radiation can make you feel sick and burn your skin. Most people are not aware of this, and continue to suffer with ill health they have no explanation for. They do not realize sometimes ill health is related to computer use.
Using a laptop or LCD does not exclude you from the negative health affects of computer radiation. All computer monitors emit low levels of radiation. Laptops and LCD monitors emit less radiation than the old-fashioned CRT monitors. However, all monitors emit enough radiation to affect your health and appearance.
A healthy solution is to use a computer accessory called a radiation filter. This product will eliminate 94-99% of the harmful radiation emitted from your computer screen. Radiation filters are available for all types of computer monitors, and they work well to protect you from radiation.
It is also helpful to move the processor tower as far away from your body as possible. This will reduce radiation that could reach and affect your body.
The negative health effects of computer radiation are a well-known topic. There is much research on the web that explains its health hazards. But unfortunately, it is also a much avoided subject. Most people do not realize the harm that radiation can cause to the human body, even at low levels. It is also not a widely advertised problem because it would negatively affect industry and the economy as a whole.
By law, there are basic health and safety requirements that manufacturers must meet for electronic products. Many manufacturers today are improving products to emit less radiation, and great technological improvements have been made in the last five years alone. Be health smart and research any electronic product before you buy to make sure it emits low radiation.
Most industry standard computer monitors do comply with low radiation guidelines. However, low radiation does not mean zero radiation. Computer radiation levels are still allowed to be high enough to cause health problems.
It is very important to use products that emit low radiation, and shield radiation emissions. Following this simple advice can help to preserve your health and well being.
also see:
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/green-g鈥?/a>
http://sharingimproves.blogspot.com/2008鈥?/a>
I hope this helps. good luck to you.
I shouldn't think this is that harm full. It would be more likely you were to be harmed by something natural before you die of laptop radiation. As far as I am aware they also use laptops in nuclear power stations and things so it wouldn't be that power full.
Is the American government lying to us about the radiation problem in the west coast?
Like for example, the Japanese news says that there is already a meltdown and radiation is already out but ours still denies that...What's up here?Is the American government lying to us about the radiation problem in the west coast?
I don't believe mainstream media and always think it is wise to do your own investigating research of issues. I have not heard of any problems but there is a lot of information around at the moment on foods that protect the body from radiation. Natural News has heaps of tips. The healthier we are and stronger we keep our bodies we can cope better if something ever happened.
The amount of radiation has been minimal.
a mathematician gives a chart for radiation levels.
http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiatio鈥?/a>Is the American government lying to us about the radiation problem in the west coast?
Even non-governmental experts all agree that there is no problem.
There is no radiation problem.Is the American government lying to us about the radiation problem in the west coast?
Your tinfoil hat will protect you.
I don't believe mainstream media and always think it is wise to do your own investigating research of issues. I have not heard of any problems but there is a lot of information around at the moment on foods that protect the body from radiation. Natural News has heaps of tips. The healthier we are and stronger we keep our bodies we can cope better if something ever happened.
The amount of radiation has been minimal.
a mathematician gives a chart for radiation levels.
http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiatio鈥?/a>Is the American government lying to us about the radiation problem in the west coast?
Even non-governmental experts all agree that there is no problem.
There is no radiation problem.Is the American government lying to us about the radiation problem in the west coast?
Your tinfoil hat will protect you.
How do you find the wavelength of emitted thermal radiation?
Matter is falling in a black hole. As it does so it gets compressed and heated to 106K. What is the wavelength of the emitted thermal radiation and at what part of the spectrum would you search for black holes?How do you find the wavelength of emitted thermal radiation?
106 degrees kelvin is pretty cold (-167 degrees Celsius = -269 degrees Fahrenheit). Did you mean to type 10^6 K? And how am I supposed to know that the matter is heated to any particular temperature? Also, why would I search at just the peak of the spectrum; wouldn't it be much more informative to look at several different frequency bands?
Three words: Wien's displacement law.
106 degrees kelvin is pretty cold (-167 degrees Celsius = -269 degrees Fahrenheit). Did you mean to type 10^6 K? And how am I supposed to know that the matter is heated to any particular temperature? Also, why would I search at just the peak of the spectrum; wouldn't it be much more informative to look at several different frequency bands?
Three words: Wien's displacement law.
What is difference between intensity of radiation and energy of radiation?
So yeah? And what is intensity of radiation because I know how to calculate energy of for example a isotope that sends out y-radation but not what or how to calculate the intensity?What is difference between intensity of radiation and energy of radiation?
Intensity is the amount of energy per unit time passing through a unit area perpendicular to a radiation source. Energy per unit time is the power, so intensity is the power passing through a unit area.
The power (P) of a source is simply the energy of the decay particles multiplied by the activity (the number of decays per second).
Now think of the source being surrounded by concentric spheres. The surface area of a sphere with radius r is given by 4*蟺*r^2. The radiation emitted by the source has to pass through these spheres, so the intensity at a distance r is given by:
I(r) = P/(4*蟺*r^2)
This has units of power per unit area, which is the appropriate unit for intensity.
(Note that it is also possible to define radiation intensity as the power per unit solid angle, in which case the intensity does not vary as a function of distance. This is a definition used commonly when talking about the electromagnetic radiation emitted by antennas.)
-----------------------
Note added in response to question in new "addional details"...
The usual definition of intensity is the (energy carried by the decay particles crossing a unit area) x (the activity, i.e., energy * activity/area. Alternatively, you can think of this as the flux of particles (particles crossing a unit area per unit time) multiplied by the energy of the particles.
If you are far enough away from the source (or the source is small enough), you can consider the source as a point source. Then, the pattern of radiation emitted by the source can be considered to be spherically symmetric, and the total area through which the particles must pass is 4*蟺*r^2 (the surface area of a sphere of radius r).
The intensity varies as a function of distance from the source; specifically, it varies as 1/distance^2.
Intensity is the amount of energy per unit time passing through a unit area perpendicular to a radiation source. Energy per unit time is the power, so intensity is the power passing through a unit area.
The power (P) of a source is simply the energy of the decay particles multiplied by the activity (the number of decays per second).
Now think of the source being surrounded by concentric spheres. The surface area of a sphere with radius r is given by 4*蟺*r^2. The radiation emitted by the source has to pass through these spheres, so the intensity at a distance r is given by:
I(r) = P/(4*蟺*r^2)
This has units of power per unit area, which is the appropriate unit for intensity.
(Note that it is also possible to define radiation intensity as the power per unit solid angle, in which case the intensity does not vary as a function of distance. This is a definition used commonly when talking about the electromagnetic radiation emitted by antennas.)
-----------------------
Note added in response to question in new "addional details"...
The usual definition of intensity is the (energy carried by the decay particles crossing a unit area) x (the activity, i.e., energy * activity/area. Alternatively, you can think of this as the flux of particles (particles crossing a unit area per unit time) multiplied by the energy of the particles.
If you are far enough away from the source (or the source is small enough), you can consider the source as a point source. Then, the pattern of radiation emitted by the source can be considered to be spherically symmetric, and the total area through which the particles must pass is 4*蟺*r^2 (the surface area of a sphere of radius r).
The intensity varies as a function of distance from the source; specifically, it varies as 1/distance^2.
Who is in charge of the information released to Americans about the radiation cloud?
Who is in charge of the information released to Americans about the radiation cloud that is coming to California?
What experience with radiation does this person have?Who is in charge of the information released to Americans about the radiation cloud?
Dosimeter for personal knowledge. Don't believe what they tell you. It will be full of half truth %26amp; out right lies for the sake of social security.Passive Pups given treats of deathWho is in charge of the information released to Americans about the radiation cloud?
Radiation at low levels can cure cancer- Even the kind that may come to America from Japan in the air, it may not be a bad thing to get a little radiation, Im being serious, there is a big debate between the experts on this stuff.Who is in charge of the information released to Americans about the radiation cloud?
That would be a tri agency responsibility,
1. Department of Energy.
2. Center for Disease Control.
3. Executive branch.
the atomic energy commision AKA the whitehouse
What experience with radiation does this person have?Who is in charge of the information released to Americans about the radiation cloud?
Dosimeter for personal knowledge. Don't believe what they tell you. It will be full of half truth %26amp; out right lies for the sake of social security.Passive Pups given treats of deathWho is in charge of the information released to Americans about the radiation cloud?
Radiation at low levels can cure cancer- Even the kind that may come to America from Japan in the air, it may not be a bad thing to get a little radiation, Im being serious, there is a big debate between the experts on this stuff.Who is in charge of the information released to Americans about the radiation cloud?
That would be a tri agency responsibility,
1. Department of Energy.
2. Center for Disease Control.
3. Executive branch.
the atomic energy commision AKA the whitehouse
What is destructive interference of two waves of electromagnetic radiation?
A) the two waves have very jagged edges and nothing can be seen;
B) two waves are out of phase and exactly cancel - no net motion;
C) the colors of the two waves cancel making black;
D) the speeds of the waves are opposite
A star is five times hotter than the Sun (its T is five times greater). How much more radiation will it emit per square meter per second (remember F = 氓T4) ?
A) 25;
B) 625;
C) 5;
D) 125
Thanks!What is destructive interference of two waves of electromagnetic radiation?
For any wave ( including electromagnetic waves) answer B is correct.
Waves out of phase cancel leaving no net amplitude.
I do not know the answer to the second part but if you meant to say F = 氓T^4
( which is what I think you meant) then 5 ^ 4 = 625 and it would emit 625 times the radiation per unit.tangled dvd death certificates
B) two waves are out of phase and exactly cancel - no net motion;
C) the colors of the two waves cancel making black;
D) the speeds of the waves are opposite
A star is five times hotter than the Sun (its T is five times greater). How much more radiation will it emit per square meter per second (remember F = 氓T4) ?
A) 25;
B) 625;
C) 5;
D) 125
Thanks!What is destructive interference of two waves of electromagnetic radiation?
For any wave ( including electromagnetic waves) answer B is correct.
Waves out of phase cancel leaving no net amplitude.
I do not know the answer to the second part but if you meant to say F = 氓T^4
( which is what I think you meant) then 5 ^ 4 = 625 and it would emit 625 times the radiation per unit.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
How can a black hole evaporate if the accretion of mass is bigger than the small energy emit upon radiation?
How can a black hole evaporate if the accretion of mass is bigger than the small energy emit upon radiation, that is if a black hole keeps aggregating mass from nearby stars and emits only small amount of Hawking radiation, how is it possible for it to evaporate?
Another question is that what's the extent to which a black hole can absorb mass, or what's the maximum distance that a black hole can attract other stellar object?How can a black hole evaporate if the accretion of mass is bigger than the small energy emit upon radiation?
An _isolated_ black hole will evaporate, i.e. the beast will evaporate through Hawking radiation if it is not also capturing mass.
A black hole is just like any other mass: its gravitational influence extents to infinity, but the strength decreases as a square of the distance. Anything that is far enough will either be on the stronger influence of something else, or will adopt a stable orbit around the black hole. If a massive object gets close enough, then tidal effect will jump in, orbiting and spiraling downward, but will not "fall" in the black hole until it reaches the event's horizon.
If our Sun could turn into a black hole, it would have a radius of about 3 km. And Mercury, the closest planet orbiting, around 50 million km away, would be safe from falling in.
Because Hawking Radiation is the gathering of virtual particles halves with the release of corresponding heat in accordance with Uncertainty, it continues on in the backdrop even while physical matter and energy are absorbed. So, there wouldn't be a disappearing act. Simply, the rate of growth surpasses the rate of reduction. There is a limit to how large a black hole can achieve. This is its heat death. The size is determined by the frequency. How large that is? Well, I'll let you do the number crunching. It's a simple formula law.How can a black hole evaporate if the accretion of mass is bigger than the small energy emit upon radiation?
@andrealg An amateur physicist might take the challenge to clarify the concept for themselves and rehearse the concept in memory...
for your second answer it depends on its mass, some black holes can be microscopicHow can a black hole evaporate if the accretion of mass is bigger than the small energy emit upon radiation?
Do you think a physicist is going to hang around here and answer this??
Another question is that what's the extent to which a black hole can absorb mass, or what's the maximum distance that a black hole can attract other stellar object?How can a black hole evaporate if the accretion of mass is bigger than the small energy emit upon radiation?
An _isolated_ black hole will evaporate, i.e. the beast will evaporate through Hawking radiation if it is not also capturing mass.
A black hole is just like any other mass: its gravitational influence extents to infinity, but the strength decreases as a square of the distance. Anything that is far enough will either be on the stronger influence of something else, or will adopt a stable orbit around the black hole. If a massive object gets close enough, then tidal effect will jump in, orbiting and spiraling downward, but will not "fall" in the black hole until it reaches the event's horizon.
If our Sun could turn into a black hole, it would have a radius of about 3 km. And Mercury, the closest planet orbiting, around 50 million km away, would be safe from falling in.
Because Hawking Radiation is the gathering of virtual particles halves with the release of corresponding heat in accordance with Uncertainty, it continues on in the backdrop even while physical matter and energy are absorbed. So, there wouldn't be a disappearing act. Simply, the rate of growth surpasses the rate of reduction. There is a limit to how large a black hole can achieve. This is its heat death. The size is determined by the frequency. How large that is? Well, I'll let you do the number crunching. It's a simple formula law.How can a black hole evaporate if the accretion of mass is bigger than the small energy emit upon radiation?
@andrealg An amateur physicist might take the challenge to clarify the concept for themselves and rehearse the concept in memory...
for your second answer it depends on its mass, some black holes can be microscopicHow can a black hole evaporate if the accretion of mass is bigger than the small energy emit upon radiation?
Do you think a physicist is going to hang around here and answer this??
How much total radiation is there in a chest x-ray. And what does that compare to a 1hr walk on a sunny beach?
I know that beach sand is latently radio active, as well as the solar radiation.How much total radiation is there in a chest x-ray. And what does that compare to a 1hr walk on a sunny beach?
Chest X ray provides around 0.1m sievert ( 1 sv = 1J/kg)
( the SI unit is gray, which would be J/kg m虏/s虏 depending on how long the xray takes ( fractures of a second) so maybe a few 碌 gray.)
As far as i know solar Xray radiation is pretty much absorbed by the atmosphere. Sand is usually quartz (silicates) which provide irrelevant doses of maybe a few 碌 sievert of gamma radiation, or less even during a whole day walking on it.
there is Radon in the air a noble gas with radioactive proportions, its decay delivers a lot more direct gamma radiation to you for details, see link below.
The UV radiation of the sun ( that is a different wavelenght than X rays, and therefore hard to compare) is problematic since UV light does not penetrate your flesh, like X rays, you only get a close to - surface radiation.
I cant seem to find any reliable data, since the amount of UV light that penetrates the atmosphere depends on the ozone and water in the air.
Anyways, radiation damages your DNA.
But your body is very well capable of repairing this damage, up to a certain point.
Radiation is not as dangerous as most people think. Still, it should be avoided if possible..
Edit
I realize that you meant radiation as in the movie and godzilla kind of way. But to be honest, that is fiction, reality is just not that simple.
X ray machines dont work with radiaoactive material, they emmit basically a strong electric impulse in a vacuum that induces Xrays.
Scientists have shown, that you can build an working Xray emitter out of duct tape, in a vacuum.
Chest X ray provides around 0.1m sievert ( 1 sv = 1J/kg)
( the SI unit is gray, which would be J/kg m虏/s虏 depending on how long the xray takes ( fractures of a second) so maybe a few 碌 gray.)
As far as i know solar Xray radiation is pretty much absorbed by the atmosphere. Sand is usually quartz (silicates) which provide irrelevant doses of maybe a few 碌 sievert of gamma radiation, or less even during a whole day walking on it.
there is Radon in the air a noble gas with radioactive proportions, its decay delivers a lot more direct gamma radiation to you for details, see link below.
The UV radiation of the sun ( that is a different wavelenght than X rays, and therefore hard to compare) is problematic since UV light does not penetrate your flesh, like X rays, you only get a close to - surface radiation.
I cant seem to find any reliable data, since the amount of UV light that penetrates the atmosphere depends on the ozone and water in the air.
Anyways, radiation damages your DNA.
But your body is very well capable of repairing this damage, up to a certain point.
Radiation is not as dangerous as most people think. Still, it should be avoided if possible..
Edit
I realize that you meant radiation as in the movie and godzilla kind of way. But to be honest, that is fiction, reality is just not that simple.
X ray machines dont work with radiaoactive material, they emmit basically a strong electric impulse in a vacuum that induces Xrays.
Scientists have shown, that you can build an working Xray emitter out of duct tape, in a vacuum.
What Will the Radiation that is blown out over the sea do?
Will the Radiation float and stick to anything for 2,000 years or sink onto the fish and make the next few generations of fish uneatable? Sink to the bottom or be carried around the world in a rain cloud?What Will the Radiation that is blown out over the sea do?
Actually the sea seems to soak up radiation quite well....
But then that's where they get those BIG monsters in Japan that go stamping all over their cardboard towns.... with the power lines made of string!
Radiation dissipates over time but if that radiation makes it to the USA probably only make your hair fall out a little is allWhat Will the Radiation that is blown out over the sea do?
The Japanese probably won't be eating many fish for awhile, that is true.
The way the world is going now we are screwed.What Will the Radiation that is blown out over the sea do?
cancer rates 100 fold. **** is bad. lets hope it doesnt come over here.
Actually the sea seems to soak up radiation quite well....
But then that's where they get those BIG monsters in Japan that go stamping all over their cardboard towns.... with the power lines made of string!
Radiation dissipates over time but if that radiation makes it to the USA probably only make your hair fall out a little is allWhat Will the Radiation that is blown out over the sea do?
The Japanese probably won't be eating many fish for awhile, that is true.
The way the world is going now we are screwed.What Will the Radiation that is blown out over the sea do?
cancer rates 100 fold. **** is bad. lets hope it doesnt come over here.
What is the current state of radiation in Japan, Is it safe for a 1 month holiday in Tokyo?
What is the current state of radiation in Japan, Is it safe for a 1 month holiday in Tokyo?
Its hard to get current information of the current state of the radiation threat. Would going
to Toyko and sourrounding areas snowfields for a period of 1 - 2 months have any lasting lasting effect on ones health in the long term, AT ALL?What is the current state of radiation in Japan, Is it safe for a 1 month holiday in Tokyo?
There is now, and never has been a radiation problem in Tokyo. The only off limits area is within a 20km radius of the Fukushima nuke plant(s). Tokyo is over 150 miles south of them.
So long as you're not within, say, 50km of the reactor itself, you're fine. So if you're staying out of Fukushima prefecture, you're fine.
You are literally exposed to more radiation on an average international flight (to anywhere, not just to Japan) than you will be during your stay in Japan.What is the current state of radiation in Japan, Is it safe for a 1 month holiday in Tokyo?
I think there's a lot more radiation happening outside of Japan because this question seems to get asked every day. Something about the radiation outside of Japan is affecting the brains of people to keep asking the same question over and over, despite the fact that YA suggests similar questions to check answers for, and despite there being archives of all of these questions.
Tokyo has not at all been affected by radiation from the Fukushima plant.
I was there in Sept/Oct. this year, and everything was normal.
Only the immediate surroundings of the Fukushima plant(approx. 20km) are prohibited.
The rest of the country is fine, and safe to travel to.What is the current state of radiation in Japan, Is it safe for a 1 month holiday in Tokyo?
No. I'm returning to live in Tokyo next year, and I wouldn't have been allowed to if the radiation was that much of a threat. 1-2 months is not a bad time. It's ok to go.
The radiation isn't that serious in Tokyo as in area at the north. As long as you stay inside the capital, you'll be fine.
Provided you are not camping inside one of the reactor cores for that month, then you'll be fine. There is no danger of radiation poisoning, nor are the current levels in Japan deemed likely to increase the cancer risk (even for people spending their whole lives here).
My dad just returned back from Tokyo last week. He say's its safe, the food is good, and the water is uncontaminated. Its Fukushimma area you need to be worried about. Also, I'd advise you to drink only bottled water. General precautions is a must. Be safe and have fun!
You can google radiationnetwork or go to Ustream where lots of people broadcasting background radiation measurements live. Also there is a lot of information exchange on FB too. Have fun staying in Japan! It is a wonderful place to visit :)
Its hard to get current information of the current state of the radiation threat. Would going
to Toyko and sourrounding areas snowfields for a period of 1 - 2 months have any lasting lasting effect on ones health in the long term, AT ALL?What is the current state of radiation in Japan, Is it safe for a 1 month holiday in Tokyo?
There is now, and never has been a radiation problem in Tokyo. The only off limits area is within a 20km radius of the Fukushima nuke plant(s). Tokyo is over 150 miles south of them.
So long as you're not within, say, 50km of the reactor itself, you're fine. So if you're staying out of Fukushima prefecture, you're fine.
You are literally exposed to more radiation on an average international flight (to anywhere, not just to Japan) than you will be during your stay in Japan.What is the current state of radiation in Japan, Is it safe for a 1 month holiday in Tokyo?
I think there's a lot more radiation happening outside of Japan because this question seems to get asked every day. Something about the radiation outside of Japan is affecting the brains of people to keep asking the same question over and over, despite the fact that YA suggests similar questions to check answers for, and despite there being archives of all of these questions.
Tokyo has not at all been affected by radiation from the Fukushima plant.
I was there in Sept/Oct. this year, and everything was normal.
Only the immediate surroundings of the Fukushima plant(approx. 20km) are prohibited.
The rest of the country is fine, and safe to travel to.What is the current state of radiation in Japan, Is it safe for a 1 month holiday in Tokyo?
No. I'm returning to live in Tokyo next year, and I wouldn't have been allowed to if the radiation was that much of a threat. 1-2 months is not a bad time. It's ok to go.
The radiation isn't that serious in Tokyo as in area at the north. As long as you stay inside the capital, you'll be fine.
Provided you are not camping inside one of the reactor cores for that month, then you'll be fine. There is no danger of radiation poisoning, nor are the current levels in Japan deemed likely to increase the cancer risk (even for people spending their whole lives here).
My dad just returned back from Tokyo last week. He say's its safe, the food is good, and the water is uncontaminated. Its Fukushimma area you need to be worried about. Also, I'd advise you to drink only bottled water. General precautions is a must. Be safe and have fun!
You can google radiationnetwork or go to Ustream where lots of people broadcasting background radiation measurements live. Also there is a lot of information exchange on FB too. Have fun staying in Japan! It is a wonderful place to visit :)
What types of radiation are emitted by laptops?
What types of radiation are emitted by laptops?
I always lay in bed with my laptop everyday for hours. I've done this for years. and my laptop is always positioned on my lower stomach. Is this harmful?What types of radiation are emitted by laptops?
As Yarbigy astutely pointed out, it's very low on the EM spectrum (certainly way lower than what one might encounter in radiography). To date, there has not been a single shred of evidence that such technology carries a health hazard, not one in extensive studies by international, independent boards.What types of radiation are emitted by laptops?
non ionizing electromagentic radiation, mostly radio frequency and infrared radation, along with visible spectrum from the screen/lights.
Laptops do not emit any particle radation or ionizing (Xray-Gamma)...well nothing more then basic background that the plastic and metals they are made of would emit from trace isotopes...so no more then anything else made of the same stuff.
AFAIK: laptops have no harmful effectdominoes online salt lake
I always lay in bed with my laptop everyday for hours. I've done this for years. and my laptop is always positioned on my lower stomach. Is this harmful?What types of radiation are emitted by laptops?
As Yarbigy astutely pointed out, it's very low on the EM spectrum (certainly way lower than what one might encounter in radiography). To date, there has not been a single shred of evidence that such technology carries a health hazard, not one in extensive studies by international, independent boards.What types of radiation are emitted by laptops?
non ionizing electromagentic radiation, mostly radio frequency and infrared radation, along with visible spectrum from the screen/lights.
Laptops do not emit any particle radation or ionizing (Xray-Gamma)...well nothing more then basic background that the plastic and metals they are made of would emit from trace isotopes...so no more then anything else made of the same stuff.
AFAIK: laptops have no harmful effect
How can you tell if your microwave has a radiation leak?
I don't have any problems using a microwave neither am I scared of using one. But how can I tell if it is leaking radiation? And what could happen if it does?How can you tell if your microwave has a radiation leak?
"...buy a leakage detector (for $40 detectors are out there) or a simpler portable detection home test kit for microwave leakage like this http://www.testcountry.com/products.html鈥?/a>
=
Please note that the above detector kit is not certified by any government regulatory agency and therefore the manufacturer can make any claims they want - similar to the claims seen on "supplements" sold at the drug store."How can you tell if your microwave has a radiation leak?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_o鈥?/a>
"...buy a leakage detector (for $40 detectors are out there) or a simpler portable detection home test kit for microwave leakage like this http://www.testcountry.com/products.html鈥?/a>
=
Please note that the above detector kit is not certified by any government regulatory agency and therefore the manufacturer can make any claims they want - similar to the claims seen on "supplements" sold at the drug store."How can you tell if your microwave has a radiation leak?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_o鈥?/a>
What is radiation and how does it spead?
I just need a simple explanation about the physics of radiation, and how it spreads after a nuclear bomb is detonated.
Thanks!What is radiation and how does it spead?
It spreads in all directions following inverse square law and very quickly at the speed of light the fastest possible.
Thanks!What is radiation and how does it spead?
It spreads in all directions following inverse square law and very quickly at the speed of light the fastest possible.
Are you worried about possible radiation exposure because of what is happening in Japan?
We live in Seattle and locals are buying out that drug that prevents the Thyroid from becoming contaminated with radiation, and we are over 5,000 miles away. Should we be concerned? I feel pretty bad about it, and fear the worse for those living there, with all that radiation. Do you think being in Seattle we are safe?Are you worried about possible radiation exposure because of what is happening in Japan?
I'm really worried about this I'm sure their not telling us everything this is one of the worse things for are planet I wonder if people realize the significance of the whole tragedy not just for Japan but for the world
I would not be worried at all. The national nuclear energy council or whatever it is has said that there is no chance of the west coast being affected by radiation. That's a long ways for radiation to become very spread out and less dense. Also the ocean winds should take care of it long before it reaches the United States in any harmful doses.Are you worried about possible radiation exposure because of what is happening in Japan?
Well put it in prospective, do you have any idea how many nukes the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, India, Pakistan detonated above ground during testing? In addition to the two cities we vaporized in Japan in 1945. We nuked many islands in the pacific closer to you then japan, and we blasted a bunch of holes in the nevada test range.
So I wouldn't worry
There is no threat to you in Seattle. At some point it might be possible to detect radiation from the Japan disaster in the US with extremely delicate instruments, but there is no reason to think that it would reach an unsafe level.Are you worried about possible radiation exposure because of what is happening in Japan?
please don't live in fear. check out this site on the japan radiation and radiation in general, it should set ur mind at ease. love, kelli http://tinyurl.com/4ekgw8e
No, I'm not worrying about this AT ALL. I worry more about the survival of the people in the affected area. Shame on you.
I'm really worried about this I'm sure their not telling us everything this is one of the worse things for are planet I wonder if people realize the significance of the whole tragedy not just for Japan but for the world
I would not be worried at all. The national nuclear energy council or whatever it is has said that there is no chance of the west coast being affected by radiation. That's a long ways for radiation to become very spread out and less dense. Also the ocean winds should take care of it long before it reaches the United States in any harmful doses.Are you worried about possible radiation exposure because of what is happening in Japan?
Well put it in prospective, do you have any idea how many nukes the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, India, Pakistan detonated above ground during testing? In addition to the two cities we vaporized in Japan in 1945. We nuked many islands in the pacific closer to you then japan, and we blasted a bunch of holes in the nevada test range.
So I wouldn't worry
There is no threat to you in Seattle. At some point it might be possible to detect radiation from the Japan disaster in the US with extremely delicate instruments, but there is no reason to think that it would reach an unsafe level.Are you worried about possible radiation exposure because of what is happening in Japan?
please don't live in fear. check out this site on the japan radiation and radiation in general, it should set ur mind at ease. love, kelli http://tinyurl.com/4ekgw8e
No, I'm not worrying about this AT ALL. I worry more about the survival of the people in the affected area. Shame on you.
Can the radiation from japan reach California?
I am very worried because i live in California and i been hearing about the nuclear radiation from japans plant hitting California!Can this happen?Are animals affected by radiation?Is their any vaccination against radiation for animals?Please answer.What effect will do on humans if we do not take the pills?Can the radiation from japan reach California?
In terms of what will reach us, it will be short lived vapor noble gas vapor.
Do not take potassium iodide unless your physician recommends it to you. The cure can be worse than the disease.. Seriously!!
generally speaking if you used iodized salt, it will handle the potential thyroid issues that would occur from increased radioactive isotopic iodine fallout from Japan.
Fear is insane. Don't fear this. We will get about as much rads as we do on a sunny day.
having lived through the cold war, and duck and cover exercises in the 60s in kindergarten, this is small change we've got bigger fish to fry like getting Obummer out of office.
but you have to think..will the radiation posin the water and the animals in it,And then we will eat it..? i mean i live in Tennessee,but i guss we get food from cali.
The radioactive dust will be so diluted and spread out as it drifts across the pacific that it will essentially be undetectable above the ordinary every day background radiation.
Most living things are affected by radiation in some way. Dogs and cats certainly are. There is no vaccine because vaccines are only used against bacteria and viruses. Radiation is neither of those things.
The air is being continuously monitored by state authorities all along the west coast. If something abnormal is detected, then you will hear about it.
Remember how back in 1945, the Japanese got nuked twice in the closing days of WWII? We're talking multikiloton events that blasted radioactive debris high in the atmosphere. If that didn't hurt you all, this won't.Can the radiation from japan reach California?
Relax man!!! Theres no way that you will be affected, you've got a better chance of being hit by stray bullet from one of the gangs in California
little, if any
In terms of what will reach us, it will be short lived vapor noble gas vapor.
Do not take potassium iodide unless your physician recommends it to you. The cure can be worse than the disease.. Seriously!!
generally speaking if you used iodized salt, it will handle the potential thyroid issues that would occur from increased radioactive isotopic iodine fallout from Japan.
Fear is insane. Don't fear this. We will get about as much rads as we do on a sunny day.
having lived through the cold war, and duck and cover exercises in the 60s in kindergarten, this is small change we've got bigger fish to fry like getting Obummer out of office.
but you have to think..will the radiation posin the water and the animals in it,And then we will eat it..? i mean i live in Tennessee,but i guss we get food from cali.
Report Abuse
Can the radiation from japan reach California?The radioactive dust will be so diluted and spread out as it drifts across the pacific that it will essentially be undetectable above the ordinary every day background radiation.
Most living things are affected by radiation in some way. Dogs and cats certainly are. There is no vaccine because vaccines are only used against bacteria and viruses. Radiation is neither of those things.
The air is being continuously monitored by state authorities all along the west coast. If something abnormal is detected, then you will hear about it.
Remember how back in 1945, the Japanese got nuked twice in the closing days of WWII? We're talking multikiloton events that blasted radioactive debris high in the atmosphere. If that didn't hurt you all, this won't.Can the radiation from japan reach California?
Relax man!!! Theres no way that you will be affected, you've got a better chance of being hit by stray bullet from one of the gangs in California
little, if any
What happens to the nucleon in an alpha radiation?
The question is stated above. Can someone please tell me what happens to it in an alpha radiation? The question is out of 2 marks so I think there might be more than 1 answer.What happens to the nucleon in an alpha radiation?
Perhaps the question should be what happens to the NUCLEUS in an 伪 radiation.
A nucleon is one of the particles in the nucleus of an atom - either a proton or a
neutron. An alpha or 伪-particle is the nucleus of a helium atom, and it contains 2
protons and 2 neutrons, so its mass number is 4.
Some heavy elements like uranium that have large nuclei can change into other
elements by emitting 伪-particles. If a nucleus emits an 伪-particle, its atomic number
decreases by 2, since it has lost 2 protons. Its mass number decreases by 4, since
it has lost a total of 4 nucleons - 2 protons and 2 neutrons.
I hope this explanation helps; it's the best I can do for your question as asked.bully dog catalytic converter
Perhaps the question should be what happens to the NUCLEUS in an 伪 radiation.
A nucleon is one of the particles in the nucleus of an atom - either a proton or a
neutron. An alpha or 伪-particle is the nucleus of a helium atom, and it contains 2
protons and 2 neutrons, so its mass number is 4.
Some heavy elements like uranium that have large nuclei can change into other
elements by emitting 伪-particles. If a nucleus emits an 伪-particle, its atomic number
decreases by 2, since it has lost 2 protons. Its mass number decreases by 4, since
it has lost a total of 4 nucleons - 2 protons and 2 neutrons.
I hope this explanation helps; it's the best I can do for your question as asked.
What happens to the nucleon in an alpha radiation?
The question is stated above. Can someone please tell me what happens to it in an alpha radiation? The question is out of 2 marks so I think there might be more than 1 answer.What happens to the nucleon in an alpha radiation?
Perhaps the question should be what happens to the NUCLEUS in an 伪 radiation.
A nucleon is one of the particles in the nucleus of an atom - either a proton or a
neutron. An alpha or 伪-particle is the nucleus of a helium atom, and it contains 2
protons and 2 neutrons, so its mass number is 4.
Some heavy elements like uranium that have large nuclei can change into other
elements by emitting 伪-particles. If a nucleus emits an 伪-particle, its atomic number
decreases by 2, since it has lost 2 protons. Its mass number decreases by 4, since
it has lost a total of 4 nucleons - 2 protons and 2 neutrons.
I hope this explanation helps; it's the best I can do for your question as asked.
Perhaps the question should be what happens to the NUCLEUS in an 伪 radiation.
A nucleon is one of the particles in the nucleus of an atom - either a proton or a
neutron. An alpha or 伪-particle is the nucleus of a helium atom, and it contains 2
protons and 2 neutrons, so its mass number is 4.
Some heavy elements like uranium that have large nuclei can change into other
elements by emitting 伪-particles. If a nucleus emits an 伪-particle, its atomic number
decreases by 2, since it has lost 2 protons. Its mass number decreases by 4, since
it has lost a total of 4 nucleons - 2 protons and 2 neutrons.
I hope this explanation helps; it's the best I can do for your question as asked.
Is electromagnetic radiation just the energy released by all the waves on the electromagnetic spectrum?
what is electromagnetic radiation, if not just the energy released from the waves on the electromagnetic spectrum?Is electromagnetic radiation just the energy released by all the waves on the electromagnetic spectrum?
I'd rearrange the question and say:
Electromagnetic radiation IS the electromagnetic waves, the waves carry energy according to their frequency and the range of frequencies is called the electromagnetic spectrum.
We could say the energy is released from the source of the waves, carried away by the waves and transferred into whatever the waves hit.
For example energy is released from nuclear reactions in the Sun, carried through space and finally transferred to the earth.Is electromagnetic radiation just the energy released by all the waves on the electromagnetic spectrum?
Electromagnetic radiation as a phrase needs to be broken down
First we have electro - this relates to an electric field
Then we have magnetic - this relates to a magnetic field and then we have
Radiation, from radiate.
If an electric field is generated in a conductor then a magnetic field surrounds it. The strength of this field depends on the current flow. But a magnetic field also generates another electric field. These beget each other in an expanding composite field - magnetic - electric - magnetic - electric etc
Radiate means having divergent rays - in other words, spraying out from a source in all directions (unless artificially focused) - we get the word radio from this as well
So the electromagnetic spectrum is simply the range of phenomena included in those things which create em radiation. I find it interesting that the spectrum existed before we used it for communications.
Em radiation includes x-rays, microwaves, sunlight, infrared and ultraviolet and radio waves (not in that order) but to answer your question, no it is not the energy released.
However I do not know how the sun produces this radiation unless it is nuclearIs electromagnetic radiation just the energy released by all the waves on the electromagnetic spectrum?
not really, that energy have to be hold to something, called electron, which have a behavior, could be like a particle or wave, but the phenom you find it's not light, electromagnetic radiation instead, so you can measure that radiation with the attraction of that material develops in the environment....
I'd rearrange the question and say:
Electromagnetic radiation IS the electromagnetic waves, the waves carry energy according to their frequency and the range of frequencies is called the electromagnetic spectrum.
We could say the energy is released from the source of the waves, carried away by the waves and transferred into whatever the waves hit.
For example energy is released from nuclear reactions in the Sun, carried through space and finally transferred to the earth.Is electromagnetic radiation just the energy released by all the waves on the electromagnetic spectrum?
Electromagnetic radiation as a phrase needs to be broken down
First we have electro - this relates to an electric field
Then we have magnetic - this relates to a magnetic field and then we have
Radiation, from radiate.
If an electric field is generated in a conductor then a magnetic field surrounds it. The strength of this field depends on the current flow. But a magnetic field also generates another electric field. These beget each other in an expanding composite field - magnetic - electric - magnetic - electric etc
Radiate means having divergent rays - in other words, spraying out from a source in all directions (unless artificially focused) - we get the word radio from this as well
So the electromagnetic spectrum is simply the range of phenomena included in those things which create em radiation. I find it interesting that the spectrum existed before we used it for communications.
Em radiation includes x-rays, microwaves, sunlight, infrared and ultraviolet and radio waves (not in that order) but to answer your question, no it is not the energy released.
However I do not know how the sun produces this radiation unless it is nuclearIs electromagnetic radiation just the energy released by all the waves on the electromagnetic spectrum?
not really, that energy have to be hold to something, called electron, which have a behavior, could be like a particle or wave, but the phenom you find it's not light, electromagnetic radiation instead, so you can measure that radiation with the attraction of that material develops in the environment....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)