- Posts
- 5,304
- Likes
- 24,272
Playing with a Geiger Counter and 2998’s
- Posts
- 1,188
- Likes
- 3,514
Pahawi
·👍
Think I need one of these GC's....
Think I need one of these GC's....
- Posts
- 8,004
- Likes
- 28,099
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberSurprisingly high!
- Posts
- 946
- Likes
- 2,077
Vintagewtchzilla
·
A little wrong usage as it makes 10 counting cycles and then presents the results.
Values measured are on the low side. One sm300 of a friend shoots up to 37 and i use exactly same counter
Values measured are on the low side. One sm300 of a friend shoots up to 37 and i use exactly same counter
- Posts
- 8,004
- Likes
- 28,099
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberA little wrong usage as it makes 10 counting cycles and then presents the results.
Values measured are on the low side. One sm300 of a friend shoots up to 37 and i use exactly same counter
10? There will be very little change after three or four cycles. And 17/19 are not "low" readings.
I am not suggesting that they are dangerous, but plenty of radium watches test in the single digits.
- Posts
- 946
- Likes
- 2,077
Vintagewtchzilla
·10? There will be very little change after three or four cycles. And 17/19 are not "low" readings.
I am not suggesting that they are dangerous, but plenty of radium watches test in the single digits.
i don't argue how to use it correctly
as shown it doesn't make sense from 2nd watch on as u have to start a new cycle for every watch .... period
i can only tell what i measured over time and a 2998 foll radium dial and hands shouls have at least 17 ....
- Posts
- 384
- Likes
- 686
stefman
·Those Speedys are “hot” 😀
- Posts
- 5,304
- Likes
- 24,272
Spacefruit
··Prolific Speedmaster HoarderA little wrong usage as it makes 10 counting cycles and then presents the results.
Values measured are on the low side. One sm300 of a friend shoots up to 37 and i use exactly same counter
Relax.
It’s not intended as a serious test for peer review.
Just a bit of fun for those unfamiliar with Geiger’s and Speedmasters.
A full test as you rightly point out would have a different methodology and results
- Posts
- 946
- Likes
- 2,077
Vintagewtchzilla
·Just for fun
Even without bezel
I hope this counts
Even without bezel
I hope this counts
Edited:
- Posts
- 3,174
- Likes
- 7,326
jimmyd13
·Did I just get cancer watching this?
- Posts
- 946
- Likes
- 2,077
- Posts
- 2,168
- Likes
- 5,715
nonuffinkbloke
·A little wrong usage as it makes 10 counting cycles and then presents the results.
Values measured are on the low side. One sm300 of a friend shoots up to 37 and i use exactly same counter
Edited:
- Posts
- 424
- Likes
- 688
321Only
·
- Posts
- 1,038
- Likes
- 1,307
Steve1haggart
·Was looking for a Geiger Counter the other day. Looks like this Soeks model is recommended?
- Posts
- 424
- Likes
- 688
321Only
·that makes too of us i was looking at this exact model yesterday on flee bay . 😀
- Posts
- 10,308
- Likes
- 16,128
padders
··Oooo subtitles!Don't worry mate! You'll have to go some to catch up with Marie Curie. I had more than that on a CT 'knob and bollock' scan last year. 😲
- Posts
- 2,168
- Likes
- 5,715
- Posts
- 317
- Likes
- 278
Patrik83
·What would be the values on the back of the watches?
Found the following when looking at what levels this corresponds too: So at the moment it is equal to a CT scan. But I guess a watch would be more as it is exposure over time, if you would have the watch with the crystal towards you. So what are the readings on the back of a watch? It should be much less as the alfa radiation is not good at going through things.
Event, Radiation reading, millisievert (mSv)
Single dose, fatal within weeks 10,000.00
Typical dosage recorded in those Chernobyl workers who died within a month 6,000.00
Single does which would kill half of those exposed to it within a month 5,000.00
Single dosage which would cause radiation sickness, including nausea, lower white blood cell count. Not fatal 1,000.00
Accumulated dosage estimated to cause a fatal cancer many years later in 5% of people 1,000.00
Max radiation levels recorded at Fukushima plant yesterday, per hour 400.00
Exposure of Chernobyl residents who were relocated after the blast in 1986 350.00
Recommended limit for radiation workers every five years 100.00
Lowest annual dose at which any increase in cancer is clearly evident 100.00
CT scan: heart 16.00
CT scan: abdomen & pelvis 15.00
Dose in full-body CT scan 10.00
Airline crew flying New York to Tokyo polar route, annual exposure 9.00
Natural radiation we're all exposed to, per year 2.00
CT scan: head 2.00
Spine x-ray 1.50
Radiation per hour detected at Fukushimia site, 12 March 1.02
Mammogram breast x-ray 0.40
Chest x-ray 0.10
Dental x-ray 0.01
SOURCES: WNA, REUTERS, RADIOLOGYINFO.ORG listed on:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/15/radiation-exposure-levels-guide#data
Found the following when looking at what levels this corresponds too: So at the moment it is equal to a CT scan. But I guess a watch would be more as it is exposure over time, if you would have the watch with the crystal towards you. So what are the readings on the back of a watch? It should be much less as the alfa radiation is not good at going through things.
Event, Radiation reading, millisievert (mSv)
Single dose, fatal within weeks 10,000.00
Typical dosage recorded in those Chernobyl workers who died within a month 6,000.00
Single does which would kill half of those exposed to it within a month 5,000.00
Single dosage which would cause radiation sickness, including nausea, lower white blood cell count. Not fatal 1,000.00
Accumulated dosage estimated to cause a fatal cancer many years later in 5% of people 1,000.00
Max radiation levels recorded at Fukushima plant yesterday, per hour 400.00
Exposure of Chernobyl residents who were relocated after the blast in 1986 350.00
Recommended limit for radiation workers every five years 100.00
Lowest annual dose at which any increase in cancer is clearly evident 100.00
CT scan: heart 16.00
CT scan: abdomen & pelvis 15.00
Dose in full-body CT scan 10.00
Airline crew flying New York to Tokyo polar route, annual exposure 9.00
Natural radiation we're all exposed to, per year 2.00
CT scan: head 2.00
Spine x-ray 1.50
Radiation per hour detected at Fukushimia site, 12 March 1.02
Mammogram breast x-ray 0.40
Chest x-ray 0.10
Dental x-ray 0.01
SOURCES: WNA, REUTERS, RADIOLOGYINFO.ORG listed on:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/15/radiation-exposure-levels-guide#data
Edited:
- Posts
- 10,308
- Likes
- 16,128
padders
··Oooo subtitles!Interesting stats. Bearing in mind that alpha radiation isn't very penetrative due to the relatively large size of the particle (ionised He nucleus) vs beta (electron) and gamma (EMR), I would expect the values experienced by the wrist in wear to be orders of magnitude lower than that measured at the crystal, if indeed measurable at all. As discussed in another recent thread, alpha can be attenuated by sheets of paper, the thickness of dial, movement and caseback should be enough to stop virtually all of it. Maybe someone with a GC could check this? In addition, alpha emitters are much less dangerous if encountered by bare skin than if ingested or inhaled for a similar reason. Of course if lume dust were able to exit the case, for instance in a non hermetic dress watch with a crumbling dial, that would be a different story.
What would be the values on the back of the watches?
Found the following when looking at what levels this corresponds to:
Event, Radiation reading, millisievert (mSv)
Single dose, fatal within weeks 10,000.00
Typical dosage recorded in those Chernobyl workers who died within a month 6,000.00
Single does which would kill half of those exposed to it within a month 5,000.00
Single dosage which would cause radiation sickness, including nausea, lower white blood cell count. Not fatal 1,000.00
Accumulated dosage estimated to cause a fatal cancer many years later in 5% of people 1,000.00
Max radiation levels recorded at Fukushima plant yesterday, per hour 400.00
Exposure of Chernobyl residents who were relocated after the blast in 1986 350.00
Recommended limit for radiation workers every five years 100.00
Lowest annual dose at which any increase in cancer is clearly evident 100.00
CT scan: heart 16.00
CT scan: abdomen & pelvis 15.00
Dose in full-body CT scan 10.00
Airline crew flying New York to Tokyo polar route, annual exposure 9.00
Natural radiation we're all exposed to, per year 2.00
CT scan: head 2.00
Spine x-ray 1.50
Radiation per hour detected at Fukushimia site, 12 March 1.02
Mammogram breast x-ray 0.40
Chest x-ray 0.10
Dental x-ray 0.01
SOURCES: WNA, REUTERS, RADIOLOGYINFO.ORG listed on:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/15/radiation-exposure-levels-guide#data
Edited:
- Posts
- 1,626
- Likes
- 6,219
micampe
·Bearing in mind that alpha radiation isn't very penetrative due to the relatively large size of the particle (ionised He nucleus) vs beta (electron) and gamma (EMR)
Since these instruments are used to measure radiation doses and rates, not the damage caused by someone ingesting an alpha emitter, the extremely short life and penetration power of alpha particles makes them irrelevant, and therefore also irrelevant when handling a non-disassembled watch, not to mention stopped by the plastic case of the instrument before they can reach the detector tube at all.
That said, my 2914-3 Railmaster measures 28uSv/h from the front and 2uSv/h from the back.
Edited:
Similar threads
- Posts
- 6
- Views
- 6K
- Posts
- 7
- Views
- 2K
