Talk:Ionizing radiation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Hormesis
I think the hormesis section here and the linked page should be merged... If I do it it will ... sland the POV in a way I don't think the author will appreciate. Pdbailey 04:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The statement in Ionizing radiation is apparently based on the BEIR III Report (BEIR stands for Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation and is the basis for radiation exposure limits). BEIR VII is now out, and the results are briefly summarized in [1] - in which "LNT" stands for "Linear model, No Threshold" (in short, no hormesis). Simesa 02:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
About the sentence "[...]this phenomenon is termed radiation hormesis and has not been shown in humans (see below).". Cited UNSCEAR report mentions that hormesis-related effects are observed in humans, although not for all individuals. Since this is by now actively investigated process, I suggest to change this into less firm statement. I will do it if there's no comment on this for a time. (przemg), 16:36, 8 January 2006 (GMT)
[edit] Physics request
Can we have more about the physics? I know that ionizing radiation will cause electrically charged objects to lose their charge. I think because the ionizing radiation ionizes air near the charged object, which then attracts whichever particles are opposite. (Electroscopes being used to detect radiation, for instance.) Specifically, I am wondering about a device patented by Tesla that is claimed to collect energy from ionizing radiation hitting a metal plate and charging it with positive charge (knocking electrons into the air?) See Talk:Solar cell#Tesla. - Omegatron 00:18, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ionizing radiation is only a type of particle radiation ??
This entry starts out by saying 'Ionizing radiation is a type of particle radiation'. If you look up 'Radiation' in Wiki, 'particle radiation' and 'electromagnetic radiation' are two different things. Xrays are electromagnetic radiation and they are ionizing... which seems to contradict.
[edit] Mutated conceptuses?
'aborting most mutated conceptuses': is this a misprint or does it mean something?--HPaul 20:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, 155.37.238.45, for introducing clarity! --HPaul 19:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discrepancy
Discrepancy:
- 'However, visible light is so common that molecules that are ionized by it....'
vs:
- 'The elements with the lowest and highest ionization potential are cesium (3.89 eV)...'
.....
'Visible light corresponds to photons with energies from 1.77 eV (λ = 700.6 nm) to 3.10 eV (λ = 400 nm) and are thus non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation.'
I know one is talking about elements, and the other molecules, but there is no indication (in the article) that any molecules have an ionization potential of less then 3.89 eV. The only molecule mentioned is: 'PMMA has an ionization potential of 8.1 eV.' 71.199.123.24 09:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- It also reads, "Examples include photographic film and some molecules involved in photosynthesis." The photosynthesis section doesn't have the cycle, so I can't name the molecules or their first ionization potential without a bit more research. Pdbailey 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Broken Links
Following links are broken:
"120 30-year exposure, Ural mountains, lower cancer mortality rate[21]" and
"500 USA NRC occupational whole skin, limb skin, or single organ exposure limit 30-year exposure, Ural mountains, (exposed population lower
cancer mortality rate) [25]"
Ural mountains are not mentioned in the article. Can't find replacement link. Remove/Find replacement? Slidersv 22:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] smoking
The relation between smoking and radon is not supported by any link or citations. (This is out of wiki style.)
I can't see where you are taking about. Please add a fact tag where you want a reference. Here is an article that's a little more detailed [2] Pdbailey 04:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
