Slashdot Mirror


Testing Geiger Counters

thesandbender writes "My girlfriend's family lives in Japan and is very interested in obtaining geiger counters for testing food and other materials. Geiger counters are now impossible to get in Japan and are on long back order from most providers in the U.S. which makes me suspicious of anything we can get our hands on. My question is, what's the best way to test/verify a geiger counter. I know I can point it at a smoke detector and it should go off but I'm not sure what I should see on the gauge. We'd even take it to any reasonable local facilities for testing (NYC area). Any input would be greatly appreciated!"

277 comments

  1. Geiger Counter by Palmsie · · Score: 2, Informative

    In case you didn't know what it was (like me):
    Wikipedia:
    A Geiger counter, also called a Geiger-Müller counter, is a type of particle detector that measures ionizing radiation. They detect the emission of nuclear radiation: alpha particles, beta particles or gamma rays. A Geiger counter detects radiation by ionization produced in a low-pressure gas in a Geiger-Müller tube. Each particle detected produces a pulse of current, but the Geiger counter cannot distinguish the energy of the source particles. Geiger counters are popular instruments used for measurements in health physics, industry, geology and other fields, because they can be made with simple electronic circuits.

    --
    Carl Sagan quotes get you an automatic +5 on all posts.
    1. Re:Geiger Counter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was using one of those when I was visiting Chernobyl. Overrated I think, could had done without too.

    2. Re:Geiger Counter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In case you didn't know what it was (like me):

      You didn't know? Really?!

      Call me cynical but for a moment there it looked like you were just karma whoring.

    3. Re:Geiger Counter by johanatan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      But, for him to be karma whoring, there'd also have to be a significant number of slashdotters who don't know (which is quite the unlikely case). So, either he didn't know; or he over-estimated the number of slashdotters who don't know.

    4. Re:Geiger Counter by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      You didn't know? Really?!

      I thought I did, but upon reading OP's description, I can safely say I knew in the same sense at someone who knows an "internal combustion engine" is what makes cars go (i.e. knows that it does), rather than knowing in the sense of someone who knows what it actually is (engine that works by sparks igniting fuel, pushing pistons in cylinders, turning the crank shaft, etc.). I knew that a Geiger counter is a device that detects radiation and makes that clicky-noise. I knew what it does, but not, really, what it is. Most of what the posted paragraph contains was new information to me.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    5. Re:Geiger Counter by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Where did you people go to school? I remember having to study GM tubes in physics lessons, at around age 14 (including some experiments to test them).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Geiger Counter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can't believe so many people are doubting if slashdotters know what a Geiger Counter is when the original question begins with "My girlfriend's family". That means he's wondering if his Japanese Real Doll (Leal Doll -- don't worry, I'm Asian) is safe for sexy time.

      If this dolls a clickin'
      don't bother dickin'.

    7. Re:Geiger Counter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who ever played Wasteland knows what a geiger counter is.

    8. Re:Geiger Counter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just find a smoker and put the sensor on thier chest.

    9. Re:Geiger Counter by somersault · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Half-Life

      --
      which is totally what she said
    10. Re:Geiger Counter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just school. I thought the people here watched enough X files or movies about nuclear reactors and atomic bombs and documentaries about nuclear waste (where do we dump them, half-life, etc). You know, science?

    11. Re:Geiger Counter by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 1

      I would have modded him Informative too.
      Yes, I don't know what a Geiger Counter is.
      And yes, I played Half-Life and I always wondered what was the name of that thing that makes "crrk crrk" when you get close to radioactive pools.

    12. Re:Geiger Counter by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      most of the smokers around here dont have sensors... they just stand outside and bitch that they cant smoke inside the building.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:Geiger Counter by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      I don't remember having a geiger counter in any classes in high school, but it's possible. It's been a long time. I do vaguely remember discussions about their operation, and purpose, along with understanding what radiation is, the half life of various materials, etc.

          The most important bit that I remember is that geiger counters usually have a test source with them, to verify functionality. If there is an emergency where you need one, it's stupid to grab one, say "it reads 0, I'm safe.", and then go walking around check radiation levels and never detecting anything because you didn't verify functionality. :)

        What people need to consider when buying one is, is it checking 4 bands, or just one. Is it calibrated, and can it be calibrated. There are plenty of the old Civil Defense units out there, where they haven't been calibrated since they were manufactured , decades ago.

          I heard that if you walk around a grocery store with one, it'll go nuts on various aisles, such as fresh produce. I've wanted one for years, but any good ones are rather expensive, considering it's just going to be a novelty toy. I don't mind having electronic toys, but it's nice to be able to use them once in a while. I picked up a no-contact infrared thermometer ("laser guided thermometer", as I like to call it). I tested my cat, my monitors, the walls of the house, and my girlfriend. :) Beyond being a novelty toy, I use it to test the air conditioning in cars. I was fixing the cooling system in two different cars in the last couple weeks. It was safer to point it at the radiator, than to touch it and see if it hurt. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    14. Re:Geiger Counter by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      If you don't mind it not being too accurate, you can build a GM tube pretty easily. If you make it quite small, then it will click more often. You don't even need a proper counter if you're just playing with it, you can just connect it up to a speaker and hear the clicks. The fun bit is the click...click...clickclickclickclickclick, not the accurate counter number anyway...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Geiger Counter by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          For fun, it'd be great. If you were say living near the Fukushima, not so great. :)

          I'd actually like to walk through the grocery store, and see if any of the levels are beyond EPA limits. But hey, if I had something small that went click in any sort of accurate fashion, it'd be a good hint of "don't buy this". :)

          I've read on how to make them. Maybe I should just go ahead and do it one day. Being the analytical person that I am, I'd of course have to tie it to my Linux machine, so I can log and graph the results. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    16. Re:Geiger Counter by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      In case you didn't know what it was (like me)

      CHRIST ON A CRACKER!

      You are an adult and you didn't know what a Geiger counter was? Jeebus, what is this world coming to? Don't they teach you ANYTHING at University? Middle School? Public School? You haven't read a book or newspaper? Your Mum keep you in a cupboard and feed you scraps?

      In any event, there are 2 types of radiation you have to be aware of when testing foodstuffs for consumption. Gamma and Beta. Gamma is the worst with beta coming up as dangerous depending. Depending on what, you say? Good question. Depending on concentration, silly.

      Most beta emitters can be detected with a survey instrument (such as a CD V-700 , provided the metal probe cover is open). Some beta emitters, however, produce very low energy, poorly penetrating radiation that may be difficult or impossible to detect. Examples of these are carbon-14, tritium, and sulfur-35.

      .

      Gamma radiation is much more dangerous because it has a much higher energy than the other two natural forms of radioactivity (the others being of course alpha and beta (mentioned above) Gamma radiation is the product of radioactive atoms. Gamma ray emission frequently follows beta decay, alpha decay, and other nuclear decay processes.

      As far as testing the Geiger counter, all you need is a week emitter of radioactivity. This could be:

      A radioactive watch dial (tritium)

      Some limestone

      A smoke detector that uses ionization to detect smoke (duh) (contains a wee bit of a radioactive element).

      I'm sure if these week emitters can set the counter off and give a readable value, you're pretty much in the clear.

      Remember, I'm not A NUCLEAR PHYSICIST , but I play on on TV.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  2. Vaseline glass. by Kenja · · Score: 4, Informative

    A common way to test a Geiger counter is to use a small sample of Vaseline glass such as a bead. The glass contains a small amount of uranium oxide which should be detectable.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Vaseline glass. by mustPushCart · · Score: 1

      They dont just want one to detect radiation, they want one to accurately tell them how much radiation is actually present. They should also know exactly how much radiation is harmful over what period of time. A faulty counter or even poor knowledge of radiation can be just as harmful by underestimating the amount of radiation than by overestimating the amount of radiation and displacing your life / spreading panic among everyone else.

    2. Re:Vaseline glass. by Kenja · · Score: 4, Informative

      As I said, Vaseline glass is often used as a calibration source. The CPM for many sources and quantities is well documented. True, if you get a random piece off eBay for a few dollars you may not know what its reading is supposed to be, but it should be consistant between different devices.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:Vaseline glass. by Kalidor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or rather, they should at least give you what various safety levels are. One of the big misconceptions is that we know what is a dangerous level of radiation: in fact all we know is what is too much radiation. Back in the 50's and 60's a group of scientist were asked to provide safety information on radiation and they came up with a scale using the points of zero and you aren't gonna see the end of the week. They then drew a linear line between these points because they had little to go on, and presented it as a best guess and further research was needed to prove it's truly linear, exponential, logarithmic, or what-have-you. Since then the linear graph has become kind of dogma and various groups have picked various points across it to set their safety thresholds.

      You'll find that you have a set threshold in most Asian nations that is quite low, due to close experience and some might say paranoia in relation to the deployment of nuclear arms.
      Roughly double these guidelines, and you get what is considered safe in many European countries.
      Roughly double them once more, and now you are heading toward the Americas.
       

      --

      Code softly but carry a big magnet.

    4. Re:Vaseline glass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll find that you have a set threshold in most Asian nations that is quite low, due to close experience and some might say paranoia in relation to the deployment of nuclear arms.
      Roughly double these guidelines, and you get what is considered safe in many European countries.
      Roughly double them once more, and now you are heading toward the Americas.

      I was under the impression that the US followed IAEAs recommendation of 1mSv/year.
      In the European country where I live the background radiation is about 3mSv/year because of high levels of uranium and radon in the ground. Because of this the recommended max doseage is set to 4mSv/year.

    5. Re:Vaseline glass. by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      If it's just to see if the thing is working, I've heard a lantern mantle works. Also old radium watches. I'm sure someone can confirm or deny.

    6. Re:Vaseline glass. by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If the food you're testing is more radioactive than a pile of brazil nuts then you probably don't want to eat it, especially if it's normally not supposed to be as radioactive as a brazil nut :).

      http://www.orau.org/PTP/collection/consumer%20products/brazilnuts.htm

      --
    7. Re:Vaseline glass. by deroby · · Score: 2

      In the European country where I live the background radiation is about 3mSv/year because of high levels of uranium and radon in the ground. Because of this the recommended max doseage is set to 4mSv/year.

      After rereading this a couple of times I really have to ask for confirmation :

      So :
      * "by convention", 1 mSv/year is considered "safe"
      * the location you live in outputs about 3 times that value (natural source)

      But, because we "know" where it comes from, and because it's "natural" radiation, it doesn't count as being harmfull and the safety limit is upped to those 3 mSv/year PLUS the "by convention" 1 mSv/year ??

      ??? What kind of logic is that ???

      Shouldn't they just put the limit to 3 mSv/year for all people living in that area ? (it's kind of non-practical to remove all background radiation) + pay extra attention to potential effects due to already having 3 times the 'conventional' limit to live with ?

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    8. Re:Vaseline glass. by Lefty2446 · · Score: 3, Informative

      After rereading this a couple of times I really have to ask for confirmation :

      So :
      * "by convention", 1 mSv/year is considered "safe"
      * the location you live in outputs about 3 times that value (natural source)

      But, because we "know" where it comes from, and because it's "natural" radiation, it doesn't count as being harmfull and the safety limit is upped to those 3 mSv/year PLUS the "by convention" 1 mSv/year ??

      ??? What kind of logic is that ???

      Shouldn't they just put the limit to 3 mSv/year for all people living in that area ? (it's kind of non-practical to remove all background radiation) + pay extra attention to potential effects due to already having 3 times the 'conventional' limit to live with ?

      So nobody who lives in that area qualifies for X-rays, scans etc?

      I know the following is XKCD but it's still quite informative:
      http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/

    9. Re:Vaseline glass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kenja you are correct. Good point.

    10. Re:Vaseline glass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you didn't see it was used as a calibration source.

    11. Re:Vaseline glass. by umghhh · · Score: 4, Informative
      The question about what is a safe level is a really tricky one especially as it involves statistics i.e. it is usually not: if you cross this line you will be shot but rather if you cross this line you may shorten your life by this much or become a customer of cancer clinic in course of your life but that you can also without additional exposure. There are different people and different effects depending also which part of the body got hit the most. On top of it if certain radioactive materials get into your body the effects depend on what these were and which part of the body is affected the most. Plutonium is highly toxic by itself and getting already small amounts into your system will probably kill you or made you uncomfortable (as with kidneys' failure uncomfortable for instance). On top of it you have empirical data from people working with extreme levels of radiations and these are not straight forward either - members of army units that cleaned up the shit in Chernobyl are mostly dead by now and those living are mostly sick yet President Carter took part in similarly adventures operation in Canada at Chalk River Laboratories in 1952 and he is still well.

      I guess the bottom line is that you just need to ensure thatbloody thing is working in the first place i.e. shows something and then compare the results - assuming majority of the food stuffs are safe then measure those and see whether there is change.

    12. Re:Vaseline glass. by drolli · · Score: 1

      The logics behind that is simple: each effort you make has positive and negative consequences. All levels on the orders of some mSv/year are *safe* in the sense that if you apply that radiation to 10000 people, you probably wont be able to see the effects - even statistically. This means if you have a population of 100000 where you have to decide to move them - or not - you have to take into account that the adverse effects may impose a bigger problem than the radiation. The psychological stress and possible loss of the workplace will probably cause an rate of death via suicide or alcoholism which far outweighs the effects of increasing the radiation level from 2mSv/year to 4mSv/year.

      However it may make sense to keep the rule not to try to expose 30000000 people to such a radiation levels. And this is exactly why i think that the persons responsible for not venting the reactors/the building immediately should go to prison.

    13. Re:Vaseline glass. by igny · · Score: 1

      Or you can just go to Area 51 (in Japan Hiroshima or Nagasaki would probably work), test your GC there, compare with values on Wikipedia, update the values on Wikipedia, and you GC is now up to an international standard.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    14. Re:Vaseline glass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ??? What kind of logic is that ???

      The same logic that was used to get the 1mSv/year value to begin with.
      Because of lack of studies IAEA pulled that value out of their asses.
      4mSv or even 3.14159265mSv/year is just as valid as 1mSv/year.
      In the end the guidlines are just there too keep stupid people from eating too much uranium.

    15. Re:Vaseline glass. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Probably the bigger problem is that(outside of relatively few, exotic, situations where the ionizing radiation is sufficiently intense to have you puking out your guts by lunchtime) the bigger question is often whether you are merely being exposed to radiation(modest uptick in longterm cancer risk, risk stops accruing when you leave, basically only x, gamma, and the more can-do beta rays need apply) or radioactive particles(alpha emitters get to come to the party, many radioactive materials are also chemically toxic, or chemically very similar to biologically active compounds and can persist for years in the body after exposure.)

    16. Re:Vaseline glass. by deroby · · Score: 1

      I honestly hope that when I need an x-ray they won't bother checking the amount of radiation I've received in the recent past. It's not like x-rays are a recreational occupation... (yeah, yeah, it's the internet, I'm sure there's some x-rated x-ray stuff out there, don't bother replying).

      IMHO these guidelines are mostly for people *working* with radiation for professional purposes, not for patients.
      But I'll agree that not upping the rate would indeed make it "impossible" for e.g. radiologists to work in an area that has naturally high background radiation as their "badge" would "colour red" after a couple of months even when they did their utmost best to shield themselves from the machinery they work with.

      Seems I hadn't thought it through all the way... thx for clarifying.

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    17. Re:Vaseline glass. by ifrag · · Score: 1

      update the values on Wikipedia, and you GC is now up to an international standard.

      At least until the edits are undone and the article is restored to the more popular incorrect value rather than the less popular incorrect value provided. That or the article could get flagged for deletion, probably not in this case however.

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
    18. Re:Vaseline glass. by wisty · · Score: 1

      But it would be better to pick a nice, high value, and risk a single possible death a year; and use the time you saved to warn people that a 9 volt battery can create about 100mA of current if it can get past the resistance of your skin ... which is current enough to have earned one guy a Darwin award.

    19. Re:Vaseline glass. by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      This would however make a geiger counter next to useless since they can't tell what type of radiation they are detecting.
      In normal cases what you need to worry about is beta and gamma radiation because they can penetrate the skin which alpha radiation is normally unable to.

      However when ingested alpha radiation is roughly 20 times more dangerous than either beta or gamma radiation if I remember correctly.
      This means that either they have to assume that all the detected radiation is alpha decay which would typically mean a huge overestimation of the actual levels of alpha radiation or assume that the majority is beta or gamma decay and thus risking underestimating the levels of alpha radiation.
      So what they really need is an accurate and reliable way to detect alpha radiation(in addition to a geiger counter) or a device that is able to distinguish between different kinds of radiation, a geiger counter will do neither of the above.

    20. Re:Vaseline glass. by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      If you want to be more precise (and more expensive), you can order NRC-free isotopes from our friendly "local"* nuclear chemistry hobby shop. I think they were having some illegal harassment issues from the FBI a while back, but I haven't heard anything recently about it. Either way, you can still order and it's perfectly legal at the Federal level (might be worth a check of your local and state ordinances... and if they're not so favorable you'll need to decide if it's worth the risk of going to court to make the judges smack down completely unreasonable (from the scientific and evidence based point of view) "radiation safety" laws that tend to get passed to make some sort of impression with the voting public). They've also got some other fun items there, but not really relevant to the real concern voiced by the original question.

      *Local is as local does; the "global village" if we want to dust of an archaic early internet phrase.

    21. Re:Vaseline glass. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You'll find that you have a set threshold in most Asian nations that is quite low, due to close experience and some might say paranoia in relation to the deployment of nuclear arms.
      Roughly double these guidelines, and you get what is considered safe in many European countries.
      Roughly double them once more, and now you are heading toward the Americas.

      And if you compare the allowable numbers BEFORE Fukushima with the ones AFTER you can see that governments worldwide including the USA and Japan have increased the allowable doses for no scientific reason in this very short time. Which pretty much proves that the numbers are a lie without even knowing how they were produced. To me it also proves that these governments know they're receiving fallout right now, but monitoring is being shut down piecemeal but worldwide. The USA announced some time ago that we would stop doing increased radiation monitoring after we started having high counts. Radiation detectors have been taken offline one after the other.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Vaseline glass. by westlake · · Score: 1

      I honestly hope that when I need an x-ray they won't bother checking the amount of radiation I've received in the recent past. It's not like x-rays are a recreational occupation.

      It is a question that can and should be asked when deciding whether the scan is necessary and appropriate.

    23. Re:Vaseline glass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I have alot of empty vasaline jars.. Can I just use them? I think they are made of glass..

    24. Re:Vaseline glass. by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      I was reading on Wikipedia about the different Civil Defense Geiger counters and some were made with a radium check source. They noted that with a half life of only 22 years, those will be significantly changed from their original values. You would need to calibrate the source with another meter of known accuracy to know where you stand.

      Some of the CD counters had uranium check sources. That's the kind I have. With a half life of tens of thousands of years, it should throw virtually identical counts as the day it was secured to the side of the meter.

    25. Re:Vaseline glass. by justNoperator · · Score: 2

      Alpha is usually determined by placing a piece of paper between the source and the detector. If the counts drop there's detectable Alpha, if the counts don't change it's from Beta or Gamma.

    26. Re:Vaseline glass. by Michael+McClary · · Score: 1

      ... in fact all we know is what is too much radiation. Back in the 50's and 60's a group of scientist were asked to provide safety information on radiation and they came up with a scale using the points of zero and you aren't gonna see the end of the week. They then drew a linear line between these points because they had little to go on, and presented it as a best guess and further research was needed to prove it's truly linear, exponential, logarithmic, or what-have-you. Since then the linear graph has become kind of dogma and various groups have picked various points across it to set their safety thresholds.

      Excluding issues for your future offspring, the hazard from low-level long-term radiation exposure is primarily increased cancer risk. IMHO that's normally an integer power law, with the integer dependent primarily on the type of cancer (and secondarily on whether you have an inherited tendency toward that cancer type.)

      Excluding a few oddballs (such as when TWO lines of tissue foul up to produce each other's growth factors), cancers consist of a cell line where several mutations have changed the cell's behavior into continuous reproduction, non-suicide, and immortalization (keep resetting the telomere clock). That typically takes the form of hits to a specific small target in the genome (the gene itself, some particular part of it, or its regulator) for each change.

      In mature tissues (where ongoing cell reproduction is nearly stopped) that means one cell "Hitting the jackpot" by getting ALL of the necessary hits, independently. The probability of getting them all is proportional to the product of the probabilities of each hit, and the probability of each hit goes up linearly with the radiation level, so the probability of getting the set of N goes up with the Nth power of the radiation level. (This ignores quibbles, such as ordering if some hits start slow growth, and not getting some other damage that kills the cell.)

      You can estimate N by looking at a log-linear graph of cancer incidence versus age. Cancers that behave this way will have a straight line with integer slope, where the slope gives the number of mutations you need. (One type of lung cancer, for instance, behaves this way and has a slope of 6.)

      If this model of radiation response is correct, the model extrapolated down linearly from high level exposure ENORMOUSLY overstates the danger of low level exposure.

    27. Re:Vaseline glass. by koona · · Score: 1

      References please.
      I'm serious, please. PM me.

    28. Re:Vaseline glass. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      They dont just want one to detect radiation, they want one to accurately tell them how much radiation is actually present. They should also know exactly how much radiation is harmful over what period of time. A faulty counter or even poor knowledge of radiation can be just as harmful by underestimating the amount of radiation than by overestimating the amount of radiation and displacing your life / spreading panic among everyone else.

      The other point is a GM counter is a detection device more than a measurement device, most are rather accurate at measuring Gamma radiation, an expensive and well calibrated GM counter can measure beta and detect some alpha, but most that a civilian is likely to acquire is barely able to detect beta and alpha particles will be pretty much invisible. Most of the contamination from a meltdown will either be uranium/plutonium, both alpha primarily emitters and undetectable until the gamma is intense enough, or cesium 137 a gamma-beta emitter and so easier to measure accurately but you still have to know what you're doing.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    29. Re:Vaseline glass. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      ??? What kind of logic is that ???

      Pretty typical logic, Occupational Exposure limits are very tight in the US, but diagnostic exposure limits are very loose. It's kind of schizophrenic for us working in dental offices where we're limited to an exposure of about 1/10 on the job of what we get as a patient from the same machines.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    30. Re:Vaseline glass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a control badge that's kept in a drawer, away from the radiation generating machines and the exposure dosage received is calculated as the difference between the two. Nuclear medicine technicians wear a ring badge, a lapel badge and a belt badge the exposure to the ring badge is very high, the lapel badge is moderate and the belt badge is low, even when they wear the lapel badge on the belt for the month.

    31. Re:Vaseline glass. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      or you could just google for "increases allowable dosage" or similar, which would net you more hits than you can eat.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:Vaseline glass. by koona · · Score: 1

      Thanks man "increases allowable dosage" didn't get any hits, but ( increases allowable dosage ) got lots. I'm a clutszz at some things. thanks

  3. Go to FUKUSHIMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    go to one of the nuclear plants, go to the core.
    If the readings are off the scale, it works!!

    1. Re:Go to FUKUSHIMA by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Even better is to use the calibration source that is customarily attached to each device. Mine has one (in a lead case) that provides three levels of emission and a section on calibration in the user manual. I would suppose any usable instrument will have one as well.

  4. Don't get one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    99% of the general population can't operate one. Measuring radiation is not like measuring signal strength of an electromagnetic field. People forget that it's radioactivate _matter_ emitting radioactivity, something akin as if you had tiny mobile towers all over the place. There is a large difference between a weak emitter stuck to your geiger counter and a powerful source a lot further away, but radioactivity-wise at a specific point they are indistinguishable. There is a large difference between different kinds of radioactivity aswell.

    Geiger counters are useless for someone without at least a basic education in nuclear physics.

    1. Re:Don't get one. by freeman-sr · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess somebody could point out those basics instead of discouraging people to even try. :)

      --
      ++
    2. Re:Don't get one. by jamesh · · Score: 2

      Geiger counters are useless for someone without at least a basic education in nuclear physics.

      I wouldn't go that far. If you have two cans of beans in front of you and pointing the geiger counter at one gives you the same reading as background and pointing it at the other makes the thing go crazy then I think it's pretty clear which is the safer[1] one to eat.

      Likewise, with a geiger counter it should be easy to tell the difference between a lettuce still full of radioactive fallout and one that's at least been rinsed off :)

      [1] that's 'safer', which doesn't necessarily imply safe...

    3. Re:Don't get one. by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Geiger counters are useless for someone without at least a basic education in nuclear physics.

      I wouldn't go that far. If you have two cans of beans in front of you and pointing the geiger counter at one gives you the same reading as background and pointing it at the other makes the thing go crazy then I think it's pretty clear which is the safer[1] one to eat.

      Likewise, with a geiger counter it should be easy to tell the difference between a lettuce still full of radioactive fallout and one that's at least been rinsed off :)

      [1] that's 'safer', which doesn't necessarily imply safe...

      In the former case what is the likelihood of that? Has the food even been canned in an affected region? If so, choose one which wasn't. I assume even if it was then there would be restrictions and possibly an outright ban on contaminated food. In the latter, if the remedy is simply rinsing the food, then rinse the food again. It wouldn't be a bad idea to rinse cans too since it would be dust that is the issue. Also buy foods which are unlikely to be affected by the outbreak, e.g. imported meat & fish & vegetables.

      Buying a geiger counter seems like an absurd overreaction.

    4. Re:Don't get one. by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Also buy foods which are unlikely to be affected by the outbreak, e.g. imported meat & fish & vegetables.

      I think that's the whole point... slapping an "Imported Goods" sticker on something doesn't make it imported, but makes it hard to tell the difference. Do you really trust your supply chain all the way to the end?

    5. Re:Don't get one. by the_raptor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless you are picking lettuce from the grounds of the Fukushima nuclear power plant that scenario isn't going to happen (and anyway you should ALWAYS wash produce, the pesticides etc that get used aren't exactly great for you either).

      From what I have read the fallout is at such low levels that it is within the bounds of variation in background radiation (ie mostly the levels are below what you would get from living in a high altitude area like Denver, Colorado). Unless you are in the immediate vicinity of the leaking reactors you aren't going to get a dose that has immediate effects, and just ignoring the whole situation will cause less damage then regularly eating junk food.

      People in general are fucking terrible at risk assessment, and that is before you use the word "radiation".

      There are several different types of radiation detectors with varying degrees of accuracy, and the type you can scrounge around and get now are probably not worth the money even if you put in the time and effort to calibrate and understand it.

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    6. Re:Don't get one. by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, not really, Geiger Counters are honestly something not meant for public use. If their family is that freaked out about the radiation, and don't trust the government, they need to jump ship like all the other weird foreigners that panic instead of being selfish and gobbling up the supply of Geiger Counters officials could be snatching up. Unless they are getting food that was raised next to the reactors, the dosage is going to be laughable. They'll get more radiation on their flight back to the states than from any ammount of cumulative food they are going to eat. Morons the whole lot of them.

    7. Re:Don't get one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also a geiger counter (to the best of my knowledge) won't allow you to determine what element the food might be contaminated with. You might get easy off and just have a bit of Caesium-whatnot and have hardly any effect on your health or you might have bad luck and there is a bit of Plutonium-whatnot in it and have a 50x higher risk of cancer in the next ten years than you would given just a dose of Caesium. Or something along these lines. Radiation != Radiation. Therefore the readings from a geiger counter are fairly useless if you think about taking in any food that might be contaminated.
      Granted Plutonium is highly unlikely to be in the food since it's pretty heavy and shouldn't be carried very far but I personally doubt it is inconceivable for any troubling element to go into the food chain. After all not every single product gets checked and checks probably are based on radiation alone and don't detail where that radiation is coming from.
      So the choice should be between trusting the government/food chain or buying from a different place altogether.

    8. Re:Don't get one. by DrXym · · Score: 1

      I don't live in Japan and have no idea how their food labelling works. However in the EU all food stuffs display a country of origin and in the case of unprocessed meats, eggs you can usually trace the product right back to the farm the animal was reared on.

    9. Re:Don't get one. by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      So if you stick a copied label on a new egg, has the single chicken retroactively layed double the amount of eggs? Or was the label invalid?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    10. Re:Don't get one. by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Geiger counters are useless for someone without at least a basic education in nuclear physics.

      I wouldn't go that far. If you have two cans of beans in front of you and pointing the geiger counter at one gives you the same reading as background and pointing it at the other makes the thing go crazy then I think it's pretty clear which is the safer[1] one to eat.

      Likewise, with a geiger counter it should be easy to tell the difference between a lettuce still full of radioactive fallout and one that's at least been rinsed off :)

      [1] that's 'safer', which doesn't necessarily imply safe...

      Not necessarily - all you know is one is emitting more penetrating particles than the other - whose particles are probably already penetrating your skin as well. The other can could be loaded with alpha emitters which are blocked by the can. Once you eat them, however...

      As a result, your readings don't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to assessing safety...

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    11. Re:Don't get one. by FishTankX · · Score: 1

      Actually, according to the local news, food exceeding regulatory radiation limits has been detected in alot of neighboring prefectures, and had to be destroyed. This extends all the way to products like green tea.

      In addition, alot of the livestock inside fukushima prefecture might have to be destroyed because the local grass also exceeded safe limits, (plants can concentrate cesium because of it's similarity to potassium) and you don't want an animal concentrating already iffy levels of radiation inside it's tissues and milk. (This is probably more of a concern with iodine than cesium.)

      There IS cause for concern, I would not so quickly dismiss people who are concerned about the safety of their food. While you may think it's a not a cause for concern, small amounts of radioactivity have been discovered in breast milk in places as far away as Tokyo. Would you, if you were a father, want to risk nucleotide ingestion by your baby? While the levels are small, there is a certain psychological component. Iodine will be gone quickly, but while cesium is expelled quickly, it is a long term threat, environmentally speaking, as it can accumulate in water sources.

    12. Re:Don't get one. by squizzar · · Score: 1

      When they went around looking for plutonium they found 5 samples with it, two or three were attributed to Fukushima Daiichi, and the others to plutonium that was in the soil from atmospheric weapons testing. Why do you think all these food regulators seem to be prepared to measure the isotopes present in foodstuffs? Because they do it all the time - that's why there are limits - it's a part of the world we live in. I take it you don't eat bananas or brazil nuts? Radiation is everywhere, and the limits for consumption are very low, so when something is regarded as safe, it probably is. The irrational fear that any exposure to any ionizing radiation will definitely cause you cancer and you will die horribly is more harmful than the radiation itself.

    13. Re:Don't get one. by Genda · · Score: 1

      This is not exactly correct. Even a relatively slightly increased reading over normal background radiation could have significant long term health consequences. Exposure to alpha and even beta radiation in even moderate levels will have relatively little impact as long as your skin is covered and you don't ingest the radioactive substance.

      Contaminated food on the other hand will introduce radioactive substances directly into your tissues where they can do serious harm both short and long term. This is especially true for substances that tend to concentrate in a single organ or tissue.

      That's one of the reasons that external measurement of radiation is so tricky, unless you have a good idea what you're actually measuring its extremely difficult to determine what impact it will have on your health.

    14. Re:Don't get one. by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      The eggs have codes printed directly on the shell using inkjet technology. The codes indicate the production facility and the date the egg was collected. This allows an outbreak of, say, salmonella to be traced back to a particular location and even a particular group of birds that laid the infected eggs.

    15. Re:Don't get one. by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Eggs are printed with the information of their country / farm of origin, grade, use by date with a red dye. So I expect any fraud involving packaged goods sold through supermarkets would be quickly uncovered. It doesn't stop occasional incidents of dodgy food entering the market but it is usually through dodgy wholesalers selling to fast food places rather than suppliers / supermarkets would tend to be more stringent.

    16. Re:Don't get one. by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The goal of the TFA author is simply whether he is entering a potentially dangerous area or if an object is radioactive. He does not need be an expert on the subject to know that if the geiger starts beeping, is because something in place is radioactive enough for him to have to avoid.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    17. Re:Don't get one. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      If you put the two cans of beans in front of you, you now have two cans of contaminated beans.
      Again, more than a basic education is needed.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    18. Re:Don't get one. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      the label is magical. the second that label is slapped on something the source is transported to whatever country you wrote on it.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    19. Re:Don't get one. by hypertex · · Score: 1

      Different types of concrete also have an active content. Driving along the freeway you will see the levels rise while passing under a concrete bridge as the material is quite different than that of the the roadbed.

    20. Re:Don't get one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, according to the local news, food exceeding regulatory radiation limits has been detected in alot of neighboring prefectures, and had to be destroyed.

      The way they determine the regulatory limit is to assume that someone gets 30% of their annual calories from whatever contaminated foodstuff, and eats the contaminated food continuously for a year. They then estimate the dose as though all of that activity were instantaneously concentrated in the target organ. The regulatory limit is twice that due to natural background.

      Would you, if you were a father, want to risk nucleotide ingestion by your baby? While the levels are small, there is a certain psychological component.

      "Small" is a wild exaggeration of the levels of contamination found in the prefectures around Fukushima Daiichi. Radiation detection equipment, like the scintillation counters used to test food, is insanely sensitive. Insanely, in the sense of being able to detect a few thousand atoms. The public reaction does not have "a certain psychological component," it is entirely psychological. Radiation conjures images of nuclear bombs, post-apocalyptic wastelands, and Godzilla. People don't understand it. Hell, scientists don't understand it: if you ask 10 nuclear physicists what a "safe" level of exposure is, you're likely to get answers spanning 3-6 orders of magnitude. Provably, acutely dangerous levels are something like 9 orders of magnitude greater than anything outside Fukushima. Levels that provably increase one's chance of dying from cancer from ~22% in the general population to ~23% are 6 orders of magnitude greater than anything around Fukushima.

      It's impossible to manage public perception of these phenomena because the numbers are mind-bogglingly small, and there is never any way to definitively prove either "no risk." Nor can you definitively prove someone's cancer, 30 years from now, is due to the pack-a-day smoking habit and not to the 0.01 mRem extra dose received because of the accident. People would much rather believe the worst than listen to facts. We're natural bred pessimists.

    21. Re:Don't get one. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Geiger counters are useless for someone without at least a basic education in nuclear physics.

      I wouldn't go that far. If you have two cans of beans in front of you and pointing the geiger counter at one gives you the same reading as background and pointing it at the other makes the thing go crazy then I think it's pretty clear which is the safer one to eat.

      You can tell which one appears to be safer to eat - but reality is, as usual, much more complicated than that. External contamination could cause a high reading, causing you to discard a can that's entirely safe to eat after washing the can or handling it with a dishcloth and aluminum foil. Equally, the can that reads 'safer' may actually be the more dangerous of the two if it has been internally contaminated (in the field or factory). Then again, both cans could be dangerous - by having a reading low enough to be undectable by a handheld detector but still significant once it enters the body.
       
      The OP has it right - without significant education and experience and background knowledge, radiation detectors are pretty much useless.

    22. Re:Don't get one. by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 0

      Exactly, and the family has never owned a Geiger Counter so they have no clue what to do with one. Alpha radiation as a good example is very poorly picked up by a GC. Which even if it is, those clicks don't diferenciate. I'm just glad the real tools that CAN differenciate are far outside this familie's reach because they don't have a clue. Wanna know the simple way to avoid the majority of radiation in food? Cut leafy greens and milk out. Just about everything else is not nearly as susseptible to picking up radiation. Of which, the highest levels found are straight up laughable, yet got entire plantations of crops destroyed. I truly love the stupidity of foreigners in Japan. It's why I rarely ever bother to make friends with any in Japan. They rarely bother to learn the most rudimentary Japanese (my last neighbor, lived there 7 years, and could barely count to 10), act like the country is a playground, and "I" end up getting looked at like I'm responsible when they are being douchebags in public, and I happen to be unfortionate enough to be around them.

      Hell, don't let this group of simpletons around bannanas with a GC. They'll never eat them again!

    23. Re:Don't get one. by drsmack1 · · Score: 2

      You sound like a complete and total douche bag. Interesting how you steered a discussion about Geiger counters towards your true interest - insulting visitors to Japan that have not obtained your (perceived) level of assimilation.

      For all your snobbery - guess what? The Japanese still view you as a inferior.

      Just because you feel like you know what is going on there - doesn't mean everyone who visits or settles in Japan needs to become experts on the very complex culture there.

      You are like a whore who looks down on other whores who do anal.

      -- "Arguing the rank among visitors is like virtue among whores"

      You must have some French in you - you fucking self-loathing Gaijin

    24. Re:Don't get one. by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Samonella isn't present inside eggs, it is present almost uniformly on the outside of the egg. In egg factories where the hens are in small cages the even mixture of chicken poo in and around the cages makes it a virtual certanty that you will get some on the eggs. At least in the US if you aren't washing off your eggs before breaking them you are likely mixing some chicken poo with the insides of the egg. Hence, contamination.

      If we had 1/10th the supply of eggs we might be able to go back to the situation where you go out to the hen house and pick up the eggs from a nest where the chicken sits to lay and brood. The chickens aren't contained in any way and spend lots of time off the nest, hence lots less chicken poo coating the eggs. But we don't have 1/10th the demand for eggs today so this doesn't really work unless you want to have $10 eggs.

      I guess another solution is 1/10 the population but we don't seem to have many volunteers for that either.

    25. Re:Don't get one. by tenco · · Score: 1
      Alpha particles would be easily shielded by the can your beans are in. Even if you're smart enough to first open the can (and spread the beans out on a surface), your GC might not be constructed in a way to even detect alpha particles (window too thick). In that case you won't even notice if your "same reading as background"-can was powdered with alpha emitters. While the electrons and x-/gamma-rays your GC could detect in that case have a Q factor of 1, that alpha particles you don't know jack about have one of 20.

      Short version: you're wrong, it's more complicated than that.

    26. Re:Don't get one. by treeves · · Score: 1

      What?
      The beans in an unopened can don't get radioactively contaminated by being in the presence of radioactivity, unless it is a neutron source.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    27. Re:Don't get one. by freeman-sr · · Score: 1

      So what if GCs ain't part of a common household? The radiation they're being exposed to is even less. And there is no way any government could ensure completely safe food market in such conditions. Hence, a reasonable solution is that everyone takes care of themselves, the best way they can.

      --
      ++
    28. Re:Don't get one. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      If it's getting THROUGH the tin can, It's a neutron source.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    29. Re:Don't get one. by treeves · · Score: 1

      No. Gammas penetrate through a tin can but do not cause the contents to become radioactive. Fallout and other radioactive contamination are not neutron sources. There *might* be some nuclides present that undergo spontaneous fission, and those would emit neutrons, although the flux would be small, and neutrons are not more penetrating than gammas, particularly through substances with low atomic weight, like beans in sauce.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    30. Re:Don't get one. by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Actually I am French so thank you for noticing, of which, I'm quite proud of. As for knowing Japanese look down on me? Why yes I do know this, but there are bonuses among this kind of drawback. Making the smallest of attempts to assmiliate is almost treated as unheared of in Japan. This is the same place one of the most genuine people I know used to be a neighbor. Yet, he lived there for over seven years, and could barely mutter basic phrases. It's something I run into more often than not.

      It is a country of in-group, out-group where each group is just part of an onion. Those who can't? Well, they can hang out with all the other awkward ex-pats for all I care. They all leave after a few years anyways after it loses it's novelty. Getting freaked out, and wanting to gobble up GC's that are much better used elsewhere however is just plain stupid regardless.

  5. G counter test by dentext · · Score: 2

    test G counters with a mantle for a gas lantern, like Colman. it's a strong short range source, so when you hold it an inch or 2 away, it'll be loud. anything thats that loud, worry about. less than that, don't worry about. That's what I learned in a Nuke Med R&D/mfg facility.

    1. Re:G counter test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      coleman now sells here in europe non-radioactive gas mantles

    2. Re:G counter test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That only works if you can find old mantles that contain Thorium. New mantles don't.

    3. Re:G counter test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A large majority of modern mantles aren't radioactive, given the effects of Thorium in a manufacturing plant. Other rare earths are used.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_mantle

    4. Re:G counter test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not anymore, Coleman isn't using thorium, and neither was some knockoff mantle I checked (it had been suggested cheaper Indian/Chinese made mantles still used some thorium in their mix).

  6. Kearny Fallout Meter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here are homebrew fallout meter designs (link to PDF at the bottom of the page): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kearny_Fallout_Meter

    More info: http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p921.htm

    I realize that does not help you calibrate your Geiger counter, but it does offer another measurement for validation of your current calibration. It also is a great thing to share with other people who do not have Geiger counters.

    1. Re:Kearny Fallout Meter by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no, hahaha. Such a meter is to detect HUGE amounts of radiation, way out of the range of the tens of thousands to couple hundred thousand counts per minute of a GM counter to move a leaf on that homebrew meter (would be tens of millions of counts and up)

      I must say the replies to this article are hugely amusing, all the armchair quarterbacks with no real basic knowledge thinking they know something useful. Even the phrase in the article "to set one off", that's not what happens.

  7. Testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would not use a smoke detector to test a Geiger Counter. The Americium 241 is an alpha decay and chances are your Geiger counter won't be sensitive to alpha particles.

    If you want to verify that a Geiger counter works, hold it beside some salt substitute (Potassium Chloride). If it starts clicking more than background, it works. Old orange Fiestaware pottery works as well.

  8. Easiest places to test geiger counters by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    1. Your local college/university science department
    2. Local Fire Dept or the nearest Fire Dept hazmat team

    My personal experience is that geiger counters come with a sample for calibration, but apparently yours didn't.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Easiest places to test geiger counters by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 0

      They haven't actually purchased one yet, or they would know this. The honestly have no clue about them, and shouldn't be using one. They just know allot of noise=bad. I would bet good money the family is not Japanese.

    2. Re:Easiest places to test geiger counters by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Old (esp. military grade) geiger counters came with callibration samples. This doesn't appear to be the case with modern hand-held devices though - they come pre-callibrated and you are not supposed to mess with the callibration in any way.

      One significant reason might be sensitivity. The old ones wouldn't pick background radiation or anything slightly above it. You needed a source just to confirm the device works at all. Nowadays the counters can guage the background quite accurately so you don't need extra confirmation it works.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  9. Some types of smoke detectors. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know I can point it at a smoke detector and it should go off ...

    Well, perhaps an Ionization type detector, but probably not other types, like Optical.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Some types of smoke detectors. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      Not even then. If your radiation counter goes off near a smoke detector, throw that thing out and get a new one, ASAP!

      Yes, most ionization-type detectors contain a small amount of Americium 241. It is radioactive. BUT... it is housed in a metal can that has angled louvers so that air can pass through, but there is no line-of-sight to the radioactive material. All radiation emitted by the Americium should be (and normally is) fully contained by the can.

      The only way you should be able to measure radiation that is above background levels would be to disassemble the can.

    2. Re:Some types of smoke detectors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >disassemble the can.

      and ingest the contents,right?

    3. Re:Some types of smoke detectors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know I can point it at a smoke detector and it should go off ...

      Well, perhaps an Ionization type detector, but probably not other types, like Optical.

      Yes, and at least where I live (switzerland), all types that contain radioactive material are banned for sale by now. So at least here, you won't find many...

    4. Re:Some types of smoke detectors. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      >disassemble the can.

      and ingest the contents,right?

      That is actually the main concern: Americium 241, in the trivial quantities that smoke detectors contain, is virtually harmless just sitting out and about. Almost all its radioactive output is alpha, which won't even reach your outer keratin layer unless you are in a fairly hard vacuum(a known health risk in itself). Ingest it, though, and the Litvinenko experience may be in your future...

    5. Re:Some types of smoke detectors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am-241 is an "alpha emitter" but Am-241 sources do emit some low-energy gamma too, which goes right through the metal can. Not a health concern, but sufficient to stimulate a functioning geiger counter. Throwing it out to get a new one won't help, because the new one will give the gc the same readings.

    6. Re:Some types of smoke detectors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second these comments.

      I used to work at a university reactor and we gave Geiger counter demonstrations.
      Smoke detectors won't set off the Geiger counter, but Orange Fiestaware plates will (Uranium)
      and so will older lantern mantles (thorium).

      The orange Fiesta ware is no longer made, but you can often find it in antique stores.

      Of course, getting the Geiger counter to go off and accurately measuring the radiation are two different things.

    7. Re:Some types of smoke detectors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried this with a ~5 year old smoke detector and got nothing (5 min count, didn't measure anything statistically significant above background). Americium 241 is an alpha emitter so you almost need to do the measurement in a vacuum to get any reasonable result. Even if you get the distance close enough the steel around the radiation source will absorb pretty much all the alpha particles anyway.

    8. Re:Some types of smoke detectors. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Am-241 sources do emit some low-energy gamma too, which goes right through the metal can. Not a health concern, but sufficient to stimulate a functioning geiger counter."

      This guy had a couple of pretty decent counters and didn't detect any.

    9. Re:Some types of smoke detectors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it would be posible to disassamble a 'Ionization type detector' and use the sensor?
      (At least if it's impossible to get a real geiger-counter)

  10. DIY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If Geiger counters are hard to buy, you can make one. Here's an absolutely brilliant video on how to:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Q7VfWdgEg

    The basic idea, and brilliance, is simple. Get a plastic scintillator and hook it up to a CCD camera. Use a time exposure to record the flashes of light, and you have a cheap and easy Geiger counter. Suitable for checking food, as well as getting an idea for the radiation around you. It's not as immediate as a real Geiger counter, but at least you have some way of seeing what's going on around you instead of being blind. The scintillators are a little hard to get retail, but very available on eBay. Cost is cheap. About $32 for a 2x2" square (which is overkill). And a simple test here is to just buy a bunch of bananas, which are naturally radioactive, though very low level.

    The next step up is to add some electronics. The NukAlert is great here. Japanese customers can find it at:
    http://www.nukalert.jp/

    I have no association with nukalert.com other than as a satisfied customer. I also don't read Japanese, so I have no idea as to what it says.

    Now, to test these suckers out, you need actual radiation. You can get low level radiation devices in the States, 5 uCurie Cs-137 sources for about $80. These are used to calibrate various instruments. I would imagine that there is a way also in Japan, given how much equipment is built there. But I'm not sure if these can be imported.

    HTH.

    --ES--

    1. Re:DIY by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Informative

      If Geiger counters are hard to buy, you can make one. Here's an absolutely brilliant video on how to:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Q7VfWdgEg

      The basic idea, and brilliance, is simple. Get a plastic scintillator and hook it up to a CCD camera. Use a time exposure to record the flashes of light, and you have a cheap and easy Geiger counter.

      That's a radiation detector, but it's not a Geiger counter.

      Of course, what the poster wants most probably is just a radiation detector (and the Geiger counter is just the one radiation detector he knows of), so your advice isn't wrong; it's just wrong to call that a Geiger counter.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:DIY by SharpFang · · Score: 2

      The basic idea is brillant. The effect, not quite so.

      Read the comments on the video and follow the links. Plastic scintillator simply does not emit enough light to be captured by a consumer-grade camera. Scientific camera, correct temperature, darkness achieved by thick black plastic - yes, it works. Best of consumer-grade night-vision cameras, 1h exposure - nothing. half-inch plywood appears "transparent" for night streetlights, but the scintillator remains dark. Sources so strong that they make alarm go off while enclosed in lead container - scintillator still not visible. This is doable but NOT with consumer-grade cameras, and as such, the whole concept of "cheap, commonly available dosimeter" falls.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    3. Re:DIY by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Of course, what the poster wants most probably is just a radiation detector (and the Geiger counter is just the one radiation detector he knows of), so your advice isn't wrong; it's just wrong to call that a Geiger counter.

      This discussion of course wouldn't be complete without a reference to the Kearny fallout meter. That you can build yourself from common household items. (Pictures.) Note though that you'd probably need to get inside one of the destroyed Fukushima reactor building for it to give a useful reading. It was designed for civil defence use after a major thermonuclear war after all.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
  11. Geiger counters are not really useful by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Informative

    Geiger counters are not really useful for food testing. They generally won't detect alpha radiation which is the most harmful type. Besides, elevated concentration of caesium or strontium can be easily mimicked by elevated levels of natural K-40.

    They really need to stop worrying about food testing. Or get a professional radiometer (which will cost $$$$).

    1. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But are they useful for testing radiation levels in the air? I live less than 100km from the edge of the evacuation zone and really would like to go there by bicycle(almost impossible to get in by car because they have barricaded off most of the area, but from what people have said, it's pretty easy to sneak in on foot or cycle). How much risk would I actually be exposing myself too? Also, would a geiger counter help?

    2. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For outdoor testing Geiger counters should work just fine. You don't need to worry (much) about alpha radiation, if you are careful to not eat or drink anything from the contaminated zone and wash your clothes and shoes afterwards. Also, try to avoid dust.

      You won't encounter promptly dangerous radiation levels, even if you are near the powerplant itself. Even doses as high as 100 times the normal background level require _months_ of exposure to become dangerous, and these kinds of doses will cause Geiger counter to click continuously.

    3. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      You've convinced me, I'm going to take a brief trip into the evacuation zone as soon as I can. I just have to make sure to post the pictures anonymously as getting caught going in there could potentially get me deported :P

    4. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enjoy your looting!

    5. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by SharpFang · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's smart to take the counter with you and -learn the doses-.
      The problem is radioactivity occurs in "patches". Places where water drained and dried. Plants that are strongly absorbing. Cloth in the wind, capturing dust particles.

      As for learning the doses: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ is helpful but generally, 0.1 microsievert/h is common background level, 1-10 microsieverts/h is the usual "elevarted radiation level" in deserted areas. Some of most radioactive trash in Chernobyl zone findable currently is 3 milisieverts/h. 10 milisieverts will cause detectable rise of cancer risk. Acute radiation poisoning occurs around 1 sievert.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    6. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      10 millisieverts doesn't cause detectable elevated cancer level, it's about 100 millisieverts. And background level is 0.1-0.2uSv/hr.

      PS: I really liked the old "Roentgen" unit, it's so much easier to remember: 10R is elevated cancer risk, 100R is mild acute poisoning, 500R is LD50. And natural level is around 10-20 uR/hr.

    7. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      But are they useful for testing radiation levels in the air? I live less than 100km from the edge of the evacuation zone and really would like to go there by bicycle(almost impossible to get in by car because they have barricaded off most of the area, but from what people have said, it's pretty easy to sneak in on foot or cycle). How much risk would I actually be exposing myself too? Also, would a geiger counter help?

      Not really - you need a device to suck air through a filter and then test the filter. Once you get the counts, wait a while and retest to get the half life and try to see what the source may be.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    8. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Thanks for correction.

      On a related note.
      About the most radioactive object findable in the Chernobyl zone on the surface, available to tourists (as opposed to stuff buried deep or hidden in hard to access cellars, and other than the reactor sarcophagus itself) is a metal grabber used to extract/insert fuel rods in the reactor.

      http://wikimapia.org/#lat=51.4013409&lon=30.0474089&z=19&l=28&m=b
      http://oclab.pl/art/spinn/17_czarnobyl/czarnobyl_25_lat_pozniej_67.jpg
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5aDoVnF8B8

      The radiation level by its surface is about 200-300 microsieverts/h. Meaning you'd have to sit in it for a month to get elevated risk of cancer.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    9. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by fireylord · · Score: 1

      Watch out for snorks!

    10. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It most certainly isn't the most harmful. It's LEAST harmful - hence why it's used in smoke detectors. Learn some physics before you pretend to be smart on Slashdot.

    11. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by nojayuk · · Score: 2

      A blogger named Spike has been to the 20km zone boundary. The Japanese authorities are now enforcing the exclusion zone to prevent looting of deserted properties as well as stopping folks who want to return to their homes.

    12. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      I should have amended 'most harmful in food products'. And it is.

      Alpha radiation has a very short range -only a few centimetres in air and about a millimetre in live tissue, but it also has a tremendous energy (for radioactive particles). So you're safe as long as you don't eat/breathe alpha-emitters.

    13. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Air testing is really only useful by running a known volume of air through a filter and then testing the filter for "counts". I used military grade radiacs in my RadCon career and there are many different devices for different types of measurement. Gamma and Beta are usually combined (a cap covers one end that you swing open to measure beta). Our alpha detector looked like an iron. The neutron detector was a bulky thing that needed plastic to thermalize the neutron to detect it.

      Please do do what you are planning - if you get contaminated (basically radioactive dust) and you bring it back with you then you are not just hurting yourself but anyone close to you. There is no single low cost way I know of to detect every type you need to guard against that is cost effective and weighs less then 50 pounds.

    14. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Once you get the counts, wait a while and retest to get the half life and try to see what the source may be.

      Often the isotope in question can be determined by the emission spectrum using gamma spectroscopy - no need to wait a half life. If that were true, we'd still be waiting to verify the discovery of most of the isotopes of Uranium and Plutonium.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    15. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For food testing a Geiger counter may not be any good but I recommend using a Doom meter.

    16. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by moonbender · · Score: 1

      So basically you're saying the stuff they thought is harmless enough not to bury or process it is now, 25 years later, still pretty harmful? I'm so relieved. Not to mention the fact that the harmful radiation level is a huge point of contention. So after a month your cancer risk is elevated by X%. Is it increased by X/2% after 15 days? Or is it zero for 29 days then suddenly X%? What if you sit 40 people in a circle around it for a single day, how will the overall (cumulative) cancer risk be affected?

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    17. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are taking health related advice from a random person on /.
      Seriously, it is an evacuation zone for a reason - don't be stupid.

    18. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Once you get the counts, wait a while and retest to get the half life and try to see what the source may be.

      Often the isotope in question can be determined by the emission spectrum using gamma spectroscopy - no need to wait a half life. If that were true, we'd still be waiting to verify the discovery of most of the isotopes of Uranium and Plutonium.

      True, but I was primarily referring to the various short lived isotopes, often natural occurring, so that you can distinguish a release form naturally occurring activity. It's a quick way to verify background sources and get out of masks.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    19. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      1) The exclusion zone allows tourists on short trips. It won't be open for common use for quite a bit.
      2) There are patches of radiation. Most of the terrain is at standard background level now.
      3) The X in our case is 0.5%. Yes, in 15 days of sitting on the bare metal in the metal cage of the grabber your risk of cancer will increase by 0.25% which is below statistical error. Of course in the meantime risk of catching pneumonia is good 10%, risk of rabies from wild animals in the area - maybe 30% (not to mention risk of getting killed by rabid wolves at night or freezing to death.) In short, you'd have to go to great lengths and expose your health to enormous level of mundane risks in order to create any risk of radiation-related health problems.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    20. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

      I really liked the old "Roentgen" unit, it's so much easier to remember:

      I'd be happy if they could just be consistent. I can't tell you how confused most of the people in my area were when listening to the early reports. If you aren't listening closely and don't routinely work with SI units, it's very easy to miss the fact that one report gives radiation levels in microSieverts, and the other in milliSieverts. And especially when these reports get passed on by mainstream media who may miss (or misread) the units, you wind up with misleading information (like people thinking things are getting better because the radiation levels are now 0.5 mSv/h, whereas before they were 300 uSv/h). It'd be nice if everyone could agree to publicize normalized results using uSv/h, even if it leads to non-standard figures like 3500 uSv/h.

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    21. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by jonescb · · Score: 1

      Alpha is the most harmful? I thought that was Gamma. Alpha particles can't even penetrate your skin but gamma will go straight through you.

    22. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      bullshit, the most harmful type of radiation is from a neutron source, it will activate you (make you radioactive). If you ingest a source then alphas are a concern,but your skin will stop alphas (as almost all from natural sources have about 5 MeV energy), so even touching an alpha source isn't harmful. Common tubes with mica windows can detect alphas, mine does.

    23. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      It all changes when you ingest a radiation source.

      Gamma is the most penetrating type or radiation, so energy deposited per particle per meter of tissue is not that big. But alphas dissipate all their energy within millimeters of their source. It's OK if the source is outside you (alphas won't even penetrate your skin), but if you ingest it - that's quite a different story.

    24. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      We're talking about food, so alphas ARE the most dangerous type of radiation here. Neutron radiation is more dangerous, of course, but it's not generated in significant quantities by the radioactive decay (well, you can mix beryllium with alpha emitter, of course).

      And detecting alphas in food by a hand-held counter is useless, they most likely will be adsorbed by the food itself.

    25. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not true. Some will.

    26. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      there are procedures to measure contamination in food with GM tube, but difficult and not for the casual hobbyist.

      yes, neutron contamination by ingestion a hard feat to pull off except in the most bizarre of nuclear accidents. thankfully most neutron emitters decay in less than a minute. Those near enough to a ground burst to get neutron field or ingest neutron emitters would be killed by the gammas anyway, so no worries.

    27. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. I could go into a lot of detail, but basically, you would need to have a calibrated source (the same isotopes in roughly the same amounts that you expect) a calibrated air pump and a bunch of air filters. Then, there's a bit of math and a lot of knowledge of the background radon levels (radon is present everywhere) and you may be able to measure any particulate (no noble gasses) on the air filters. Generally, pull air through a filter for an hour or more, let the radon daughters decay away and then count the air filter, subtract a count from an unused filter (which will still give counts as everything on the planet is naturally radioactive to some degree) and that's assuming the Geiger Counter can integrate counts over a long period, not just as a ratemeter and you have a nice lead shield to count within to minimize he ambient background. Then what do you do with the results? Is 10 picocuries per cubic meter of Cesium-137 too high? If you propogate the error correctly, you will have a number like 10 +/- 8 picocuries. Or even 10 +/- 15 picocuries. What is the hazard when the result is smaller than the error? Welcome to my world.

    28. Re:Geiger counters are not really useful by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Well... Wear a dust mask.

  12. Calibration Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Calibration Source? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Just buy a smoke detector with Am-241 source. Stronger and doesn't get you on all kinds of blacklists with NSA, CIA, FBI, TSA and the likes.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:Calibration Source? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Bad advice - nearly all Geiger counters (true Geiger counters - those with GM tubes) are completely insensitive to alpha radiation - the window that allows radiation in while maintaining the vacuum is too thick to allow alpha in. Additionally, the mean path length of alpha in air is only a few cm, so you have to be right on the source to get a reading at all, even if you counter is sensitive.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    3. Re:Calibration Source? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Am-241 alpha decay is accompanied by significant gamma radiation, one component of it of significant energy (60keV).

      Alpha 5485 keV 84.5
      Alpha 5443 keV 13.0
      Gamma 59.5 keV 35.9
      Gamma 26.3 keV 2.4
      Gamma 13.9 keV 42

      People love to forget about this when looking at decay schematics. Just as well as forgetting about product of a decay, which may be highly unstable - and may produce other unstable products as result, so that one decay of a long-halflife particle will produce several particles of radiation as consecutive nuclea decay until it reaches a stable or long-lived isotope quite a few "nodes" down the ladder. (not the case with Am-241 though, it decays to long-lived Np-237)

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    4. Re:Calibration Source? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Good point. this device claims 30 keV minimum gamma energy, so it would see the 60 keV ray. FWIW, that unit claims minimum alpha energy of 4 MeV, so it'd see the alphas, too.

      Interesting quote from here:

      Am-241 emits low energy gamma rays of 60 keV. The Am-241 gamma dose constant of 3.14 x 10-9 Sv m2 h-1 Ci-1 gives an annual dose at one metre of 27 Sv/yr for an average household smoke detector - around 100 times lower than the dose from natural background radiation.

      Could you really detect that above background?

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  13. What is the issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Testing the efficacy of radiological test equipment is a solved problem as of 60 years ago. What is the issue?

    If you can put aside your overt hatred of anything "US" in origin, viable counters with NRC approval (of known efficacy bearing Federal approval) are a few mouse clicks away - far less keystrokes involved than posting this "request for information" on an Internet blog.

    Since you posted this on ./, one can assume you are wanting to do this on the cheap, with Linux, or without "anything US", etc. If so, you are limited to Russian units from E-bay or surplus Yugoslav detectors from 1991- which are most likely inaccurate due to calibration drift, based on chemical dosimetry, or a valve-based unit weighing more than the average Walmart patron.

    You need to pick your poison.

    Do the research, pony up the money or suffer buyers remorse.

  14. Samples by PsychoticSpoon · · Score: 2

    I have a Geiger counter from the 1960's that includes a small sample of radioactive material on its side for testing and calibration. The manual states that there should be a certain number of clicks per second, and based on the half life of the material, it looks like it still works fine. Amazon also sells small samples of uranium that have a specific number of clicks per second that you can use to test your equipment.
    Other than that, there is a normal level of background radiation that amounts to about 14 clicks per minute if no other material is available, but this might not be viable in your area.
    Actually, I don't really have a pressing need for my Geiger counter, and it sure sounds like you need it more than me. If you want, I'd be happy to ship it. Let me know.

    1. Re:Samples by kiberovca · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't all of the Geiger counters come with exactly that - an small sample of radioactive material for calibration? I thought that is the norm even for today's devices. I guess the OP should ask in the shop where he/she is buying.

      --
      Eric: "What're quantum mechanics?"
      Rincewind: "I don't know. People who repair quantums, I suppose."
  15. Try your local university by hisperati · · Score: 1

    Try contacting someone at your local university in physics or chemistry. They will have access to common radioactive test sources (like Na-22) which they use in standardized amounts for calibration. They may be willing to help and can give you the exact information you need. Or maybe you could buy a small Na-22 sample from a laboratory supply shop online? I don't know. I don't think you need a license and it will come in a small 'safe' plastic disk. Then you can read online how to use it as a reference source.

  16. Maybe I'll go for some karma too: by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Funny

    But, for him to be karma whoring, there'd also have to be a significant number of slashdotters who don't know (which is quite the unlikely case). So, either he didn't know; or he over-estimated the number of slashdotters who don't know.

    Arse:
    1. the buttocks
    2. the anus
    3. a stupid person; fool

    Elbow:
    1. The joint or bend of the arm between the forearm and the upper arm.
    2. The bony outer projection of this joint.

    Well its about ask likely as a slashdotter not knowing what a Geiger counter is.

    1. Re:Maybe I'll go for some karma too: by EdgeCreeper · · Score: 2

      Woman:
      Oh wait nevermind....

    2. Re:Maybe I'll go for some karma too: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arse: 1. the buttocks 2. the anus 3. a stupid person; fool

      Huh... so it really is different from a hole in the ground. Learn something new every day.

  17. I used to do this for a living! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked at the regional radiation service for a while, one of my dutys was to calibrate counters.

    It was actually trivially easy, we had a few calibrated sealed sources (it's nearly 20 years ago so don't ask me which particular isotopes) and took readings at 20cm from the source. This was fed into a program (that I wrote) which calculated the expected rate from the source based on the time & the half life and produced a calibration certificate.

    There were some other checks too, electrical safety, light permiablity of scintillation tubes (nothing more funny than testing one that's faulty - point it at any light source and you get a massive reading, scares people shitless!)

    Best place to start to find out if this is a service that's offered is to go to the nearest hospital with a medical physics department (there's normally one with a major radiotherapy department) they should be able to point you in the right direction.

    1. Re:I used to do this for a living! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My GrandF was USSR geologist and used Geiger counter for his needs, he told me that main issue was to calibrate the counter. For calibration they used very very small amount of isolated radioactive material which was kept in safe, isolated container. Calibration was done by opening the hole of container. This is what they were doing for professional use, don't know about domestic...

  18. Suggested GC and some info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Geiger counter I have, and recommend:
    http://www.gammascout.com/

    "The DOE's position is that there is NO safe dose of radiation (linear, no cut-off model) ."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(radiation)

    Nice comparison of radiation doses:
    http://xkcd.com/radiation/

  19. bananas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buy some bananas.

  20. Not all smoke detectors use radiation by Oryn · · Score: 1

    Be careful. Quite a lot of modern smoke detectors use LED light beams to detect smoke. These will not trigger much of a reading from your Geiger Counter

    1. Re:Not all smoke detectors use radiation by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Nor should a normal detector. The can should completely isolate the material from being detectable by a GC.

  21. A tiny bit on radiation readings by meerling · · Score: 2

    I can't say anything about calibrating, but an easy way to check it's functionality and great way to demonstrate science is as follows:

    Go outside, preferably during the day, take a reading. This is background radiation, you live in it your entire life, it varies, and the sun puts out a lot so it will be lower during the night. Don't panic, Hollywood, like usual, got the science wrong. (Think about it, how often do cars actually explode in real life. Yeah, Hollywood science is useless.)

    Great, now go inside a building, take another reading. If you've got access to a nice sturdy concrete building with a basement, or some caves, those are even better. See how much it dropped? That's because of the building (or earth and solid rock) blocking the radiation coming from the sky.

    Now keeping an eye on the changing levels is probably what someone in Japan really wants, but you might have to ask someone that's in the science department at a university to find out what the readings were before the Fukishima incident.
    Also, distance from source will effect intensity by a lot! So a chunk of radioactive material 1 meter away will read much much higher than one 10 meters away. Since the sun and other stars are so far away, the measly distance of the Earths diameter won't make much different to those, so unless there's a flare or something, only the terrestrial sources will be a big worry.

    Anyhow, this is all high school stuff, or it used to be before they started dumbing down science in schools, so it's easy to find books about it in most libraries.

    As a side note, you can NOT detect a modern unexploded nuke with a geiger counter, their cases are so heavily shielded you can use them for radiation shielding.
    Again, Hollywood is so full of it. :)

    1. Re:A tiny bit on radiation readings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is plain wrong and misleading. The amount of detection measured indoor and outdoor varies wildly, depending from several factors. Just to make a few examples:
      If sands making up your soil come from the dissolution of granite you will measure a higher radiation background, than when measuring radiation emitted by limestone sands, the reason laying in the amount of thorium and uraniun minerals usually found in granite. If the building where you do indoor measurements is built over a fault and/or it is poorly vented, you will find plenty of radiations due to the presence of radon. I could go on further showing counter-examples to all your statements, but it is not worth of it. For sure your knowledge of radiation physics is more negligible than the amount of my background radiation (and I live very far from Fukushima).
      .

    2. Re:A tiny bit on radiation readings by Teun · · Score: 4, Informative
      You are very wrong in assuming radiation is less inside a building, especially granite has a high natural radiation and it might be incorporated in the concrete.

      Certain kinds of plaster board are made from material recovered at cement furnaces and it too has a quite high radiation level.

      Radiation measurements are part of my job, I'm certified for it and I can tell you making a useful measurement of foodstuff requires expensive gear and a lot of time.

      A simple way of checking the counter is to point it downwards to a non-polluted part of the ground, record the reading in counts/sec, this is called the background radiation.

      Background radiation is as low as 4-8 counts at sea and around 30-40 in an area with clay or granite. Going up in the mountains might expose you to ~100 counts/sec from cosmic radiation. Now point it at the object you want to check, when the reading is less than 3x the background it can be considered non-polluted. That doesn't mean it's safe but at least there's less worry.

      The biggest problem is these meters will not show you all radiation, usually only Gamma and Beta radiation while Alpha can be just as dangerous. Some sorts of radiation have a hard time passing through even a thin layer of moisture, that includes the skin of vegetables.

      All in all, buying a Geiger counter is most likely a total waste of money and certainly a source of misinterpretation.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    3. Re:A tiny bit on radiation readings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounded a little off to me, then I found a clue! I stopped reading when I hit the word "effect" in your 4th paragraph having decided you don't know what you're talking about.

  22. Use calibrated radiation sources by goodmanj · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Point it at a smoke detector" won't work: the americium in smoke detectors emits alpha radiation, which can't penetrate the walls of the detector. There's no sense messing around here: if you want to do it, do it right. You will need a little bit of money and the ability to do math.

    Buy a calibrated radiation source: you can buy them here, among other places. They're relatively cheap -- tens of dollars. Cs137 is very easy to get, but you also might want to get some Sr90, which is a pure beta emitter. These sealed disks contain such a tiny amount of radioactive material that the risk to health from them is negligible, and they can be mailed and used without a license. However, I do not know mailing them internationally is legal or wise.

    (The same company will also sell you a lead container to hold your sources in, but I'll tell you from personal experience that quite a few gamma rays will go right through the container.)

    Put the source in front of the detector, a short distance away. If your detector is working, it should start clicking/beeping like crazy. Calculate the count rate. By working out the geometry, looking up the properties of your source, and converting curies to counts per second (hey, nobody said this would be easy), you can work out the "efficiency" of the detector. Move the source farther from the detector: the counts should fall off as an inverse square law.

    Now that the detector is calibrated, you can use that efficiency factor to calculate the radioactivity of an *unknown* source.

    Important note: while these sources are generally considered safe, the radiation they emit will be *many* orders of magnitude more than any contamination in Japanese food products. You can look at this fact in two ways: either this shows that concerns about food safety are overblown, or suggests that the best way to protect yourself from unnecessary radiation is to not do this experiment.

    If you don't have access to or don't want to buy calibrated radiation sources, you can buy yourself some "No Salt" salt substitute, which is food-grade potassium chloride. The naturally radioactive potassium-40 in it is easily detectable with a good Geiger counter: you can look up the natural abundance of 40K and do a little chemistry to figure out the number of curies in a carefully measured gram of KCl, and use it as a calibration standard.

    1. Re:Use calibrated radiation sources by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      mportant note: while these sources are generally considered safe, the radiation they emit will be *many* orders of magnitude more than any contamination in Japanese food products.

      And here-in lies the problem. Even if you calibrate your Geiger counter the readings will only be assured for much higher levels of radiation than you are likely to encounter. Instruments that can measure very low levels accurately are extremely expensive and require professional calibration. You couldn't just point one at your food either, it would need to be prepared (and destroyed) to get a good reading.

      The good news is that I'm sure there are plenty of people with high end equipment checking food and soil for you. Even if you don't trust the government they can't just hide radiation, and there are plenty of academic institutions which are taking their own measurements.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Use calibrated radiation sources by kf6auf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Look up Americium in a Table of Isotopes; there are a decent number gamma rays that it emits at 60keV or 73keV depending on the isotope (Am-241 or Am-243) after it alpha decays. That said, smoke detectors vary a lot depending on the amount of Americium inside and you're always better off with a long half-life calibration source.

    3. Re:Use calibrated radiation sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... you can buy yourself some "No Salt" salt substitute, which is food-grade potassium chloride.

      Does anyone else see the irony that 'no salt' is in fact, a salt (just not sodium chloride)?

    4. Re:Use calibrated radiation sources by the_raptor · · Score: 3, Informative

      '"Point it at a smoke detector" won't work: the americium in smoke detectors emits alpha radiation, which can't penetrate the walls of the detector.'

      When I was in high school 12 years ago the radiation sources the science department had were from the 80's and barely registered above background using the Geiger counter we had. I bought in some Americium based smoke detectors from home and those where emitting massively more amounts of radiation.

      It is my understanding that the alpha from those sources would be stopped by the plastic housing and a few centimetres of air, not by the ionization chamber housing itself.

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    5. Re:Use calibrated radiation sources by vlm · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Point it at a smoke detector" won't work: the americium in smoke detectors emits alpha radiation

      Most of your post is sooo good but this tiny part is soooo far off. I can tell you're quoting some simplified "book learning" not having done experiments in a lab with some Am241 and even a cheapy scintillator MCA. Trust me, you get a nice assortment of gammas from Am-241.

      http://wiki.4hv.org/index.php/Americium-241

      Go to google image search, enter "am 241 gamma spectrum" and see pretty graphs of Am241 gamma emission.

      Also, never forget that there is no such thing as a chemically pure (or especially isotope pure) substance. The instant that miraculously 100% pure Am-241 target was refined, 237Np started building up, and 237Np leads inevitably to 233Pa, 233Pa leads inevitably to 232U while emitting a nice strong beta, etc. So, in any "real world" sample you'll have a whole vegetable soup of pretty much ... everything.

      Now ratios, yeah, you're gonna see exactly one zillion alphas for every geiger detectable gamma. That in no way excludes the detection of gammas and betas from a chunk of 241Am.

      Radiology is a very analog science... the digital 1s and 0s types have a rough time in radiology.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:Use calibrated radiation sources by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Point taken, this is the one part of my post which I haven't actually done personally. I assumed daughter product gammas would be undetectable due to their long half-life.

      Radiology is a very analog science... the digital 1s and 0s types have a rough time in radiology.

      I gotta disagree. What could be more "ones and zeroes" than radioactive decay? It's the ultimate yes-or-no question.

    7. Re:Use calibrated radiation sources by vlm · · Score: 1

      I gotta disagree. What could be more "ones and zeroes" than radioactive decay? It's the ultimate yes-or-no question.

      Agreed, on the smallest scale. Once you get up to observable masses of the stuff, everything is a steaming pile of differential equations. And a hideous stack of statistics. Kind of like arguing I can simulate my car suspension using ones and zeros at a very low level but in the real world theres a lot of analog going on in there.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  23. where to get Geiger counters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try other countries. If the USA is backlogged, then try another country. Try Europe. Try Taiwan. Try Russia. Expand.

  24. Local schools will have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Test discs that are marked to what they should read on a counter. If you just want to verify it works an old school watch with a glow in the dark dial or hands will set it off.

  25. Potassium-40 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The easiest way to test a geiger counter is to get a big bag of potassium chloride (found in water treatment salts, low or no sodium salts for diet purposes) . The radiation from the naturally present potassium-40 should be easily detectable with a decent counter.

    No need to search for uranium glass or thorium containing lantern mantles.A sufficiently sensitive counter should also click randomly due to background radiation.

  26. heres an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    send it to a geiger counter calibration house and get it calibrated.

    really, this shit isnt hard.

  27. this may help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://xkcd.com/radiation/

  28. Test samples. by drolli · · Score: 2

    if you know somebody who organizes a lab course in physics, in a university you can ask if you can take the geiger counter there and compare it to their calibrated samples. Typically there is a box of sealed test samples (well locked away), which have well defined radiation doses in different gamma-ranges, so you can test the sensitivity. However, you will have to take an safety instruction to even touch the box. So if you know somebody there well, he may help you. He may even tell you how to calibrate the device correctly using that sample. Another way, which is less technically challenging and will not give you a quantitative calibration is to use one of the typical stones which radiate stronger. Refer to any standard textbook which these are in you region. Look e.g. for granite on wikipedia and follow to the original sources. However none of these means will provide you with any information about the sensitivity of the counter.

    As for your friend trying to measure food: More than a quantitative comparison "this radiates stronger than that" will not be possible. The data will be problematically low for the prescribed doses if the counter has no good integrator/long term counter and is stable. Any quantitative measurement of contamination with isotopes is completely unrealistic outside the lab and with an inexperienced operator, especially if the device has no energy resolution. A simple workaround around the latter would be insert materials with different absorption coefficients into the path and compare the measurements, but i cant tell how well that works. Moreover 100-1000Bq/kg is not much. I doubt you manage to get more than a count rate of 1-10clicks per second from a sample of acceptable size. which means that in order to get a 10Percent resolution you may have to integrate over 100seconds or more. That means that the dark count rate should be acceptably stable.

    If your friend does this to protect the own health, i recommend the following: don't do it. There are two possibilities: either the food in monitored professionally and marked correctly (which i believe is normally the case in Japan) or its not. If its monitored professionally then there will be no long-term contamination which is undetected. The effect of a spurious peak in one meal to ten or even hundred times of the allowed level wont kill you or have any adverse effects, and reliably i think you will be only able to detect starting from about 10-100 times of the allowed dose. If the food which is not monitored professionally *and* comes from within 50-100km around the reactor then don't eat it, if you have the choice, until the situation stabilized (that is, when any kind of containment, even by a simple plastic foil is reestablished and then after a few months, look at the ieae website). If you believe you must support the farmers there, then donate money, don't buy the food.

    An non-reading can also provide you with a false sense of safety, and that is true for all uncontrolled foods. There is no way for a layman to establish safety of a food which comes from within the problematic range around the reactor.

    My personal feeling is that *in Japan, which has high food quality in general* an inexperienced operator of a Geiger counter trying to measure his own food will have higher stress due to mis/unclear readings and the constant (lets remember, this may have to be done for 20years if you take it seriously) reminder of the danger just before eating. The adverse health effects of this and possible associated psychological effects (stress before eating) will outweigh the negative effects of getting a higher dose from time to time. If you take the 30min-1h per day which you need to check the food *seriously* for such low doses of radiation, then there are other thing you can do in this hour (go jogging, ride a bike etc.) which will help the body more to develop the immune system.

    1. Re:Test samples. by vlm · · Score: 1

      Been there, done that. Humorously, WRT the NRC exempt samples, the main problem is each source is moderately expensive (think of the cost of a nice lunch). And nuts think it would be funny, cool, scary and 'leet to steal them. So its kind of like walking up to the lab counter in the chem building and asking for a bottle of gold chloride... they probably have it in stock, and they're probably not amused at the idea of "loaning" it to you without leaving behind an ID and signatures blah blah. The main danger is usually storing the sources in bare lead, lead is not something you want in your body. The other problem is stereotypically NRC exempt sources Usually have ridiculous half lives, like 60 days or whatever. Aside from only being 1 uCi, they also decay away to just about nothing in a couple years. So, despite the original expense, you might get them to give one away to you if its old and useless enough.

      The registered sources I got to play with were generally intrinsically safe. Sure, you can play with the Ra sources... They're permanently mounted in the bottom of a 55 gallon drum full of cement with a sample tube in the center that you can drop your sample / scintillator into. And of course the sources are in the basement and they went to great effort to remove elevator access to the basement and the stairs were replaced with cheapy wooden ones that will shatter at about a 1000 pound load, and the 55 gallon drum of cement and lead weight about 2000 pounds, so... (admittedly this was long before the ADA law existed) And there was a drainage "moat" in front of the stairs that had a grate over it that I am told was designed to shatter if you shoved a heavy source over it...

      They were much more nervous about people playing with the easily stealable exempt sources than the unstealable registered sources.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  29. Don't bother. by kombipom · · Score: 2

    If I remember correctly the reported levels of contamination in the food and water supply in Japan were, even at their peek, in the order of a couple of 100Bq per kg. You need to put a sample in a counter or spectrometer for some time to be able to tell those levels from background. Pointing a GM tube at pieces of spinach to see if one is contaminated more than another is futile, all you are going to notice is variations in background. You can have fun finding all sorts of slightly radioactive things with a counter if you like but unless you are willing to spend >$10k on a portable gamma spectrometer which _might_ be able to distinguish tiny amounts of I-131 or Cs-137 from background you are not going to find anything in the food.

  30. get the old Cold War stock models by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    try this:

    http://cgi.ebay.com/CDV700-GEIGER-COUNTER-Radiation-Detector-NEW-OS-/350465234219

    or

    http://cgi.ebay.com/CDV700-GEIGER-COUNTER-Radiation-Detector-NEW-OS-/350465234219

    It runs on D batteries.

  31. Chose Wisely. by logistic · · Score: 1

    There are lots of caveats as most of these meters are for detecting contamination rather than dose rate.

    The CDV -700 has a pretty thick window so not super sensitive. They are all pretty old so you would be wise to check it carefully before using.

    To reliably detect small amounts of radiation contaminating food you will need to spend a fair bit of money on something more sensitive that most of the survivalist supply stores:
    http://www.ludlums.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_ludlum.tpl&product_id=300&category_id=115&keyword=3_with&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=95
    (they will also do calibration)

    Eberline made very good instruments but I can't find them on the web as making them currently. They made also very good equivalent products. You may find a good used one of these.

    Proper NIST traceable calibration may be worth your time the meters are generally calibrated for dose rate or energy from a standard Cesium-137 source Cobalt-60 is commonly used and they are both major fission products so they are good choices for the stated application):

    One vendor near NY I found on web: http://biomedphysics.com/survey-meter-calibration-and-repair

    The Reed College Reactor Facility might also do it. This will likely be the cheapest method (website quotes $50 per probe +shipping): http://reactor.reed.edu/metercal.html

    As others have mentioned most smoke detectors use Americium which is an alpha emitter. You need a very thin window and large surface area probe to detect this reliably. These don't make great test sources.

    If you can find an older colman style lantern mantle made of thorium (the newer "safer" ones do NOT have thorium) they make great test sources and will set off most Geiger counters and are really useful as you should check to make sure it's working with every use. The probes are delicate, the batteries die etc so if it's important check every time. Keep them in a plastic bag so they don't contaminate your detector!

    Good Luck!

  32. United Nuclear by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=2_5

    All Isotopes are sold by the microcurie (uCi)
    ( 1 microcurie = 2.22 x 10E6 disintegrations / minute = 2,220,000 cpm )

    Normal sources are + or - 20% pf stated value.
    For calibrated sources, add $120.00 and source will be + or - 5% of stated value and will include a calibration certificate.
    Calibration is only available for gamma sources.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    1. Re:United Nuclear by vlm · · Score: 1

      Eeeek, prices have gone up. 20 years ago those sold for about $15 each. I'm not sure if the price of anything but gold, oil, and silver has more than quadrupled since then.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:United Nuclear by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      There is a drastic shortage of medical isotopes. I assume from some news articles that readily available supplies of other isotopes are as hard to get. I will check and see if the 10yr half life ones are available and get at least one sample.

      The uranium pigmented marbles they sell are pretty neat under UV. A high intensity UV LED plus one of those is an intensely bright spooky green glow.

      The owner was harassed by some government agency, not over the radioactives but over some of the pyrotechnic supplies.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  33. safecast.org by gnaac · · Score: 1

    So this doesn't specifically address your question about geiger counter testing, but if you're interested in the radiation levels in japan, and an attempt to crowdsource radiation collection, check out http://www.safecast.org/ Also, I recall reading somewhere that they were working with some group to create a DIY geiger counter. Might include some testing info as well.

  34. No by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    You can't calibrate it yourself. Or, if you could, you wouldn't be asking here. You need special equipment.

    Look here. http://www.radmeters4u.com/calibrate.htm

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:No by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

      Or, you can calibrate it *on* yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMPtj71xGzY

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
  35. Simple Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Test it compared to a known source. The Geiger counter should come with a test source of known activity, which will allow you to calibrate it. Aside from that, go online and find acceptable levels of radioactivity in foods to determine where your threshold should be. Young children and the elderly should have their acceptable thresholds adjusted, but you should be safe in staying with the average.

  36. The reviews are a bit mixed but... by kEnder242 · · Score: 1

    http://www.amazon.com/Images-SI-Inc-Uranium-Ore/dp/B000796XXM

    --
    my associative arrays can kick your hash - TCL
  37. I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess what, I live in Japan too. Geiger counters are easy to get.

    go to Akihabara station, go out the exit with Yodobashi camera, and turn left. Walk across to where the McDonalds is, and go down the stairs to the place that sells electronics stuff (Mainly used PCs and unlocked mobile phones). They have new Geiger counters - as do many places in Akihabara.

    Then again, you don't really need it, since the government, scientific agencies, educational institutions, and even other hobbiests are measuring and posting the numbers online all the time.

    There is also the issue of knowing what you are measuring and what it means. Unless she lives reasonably near to Fukushima, the levels in Tokyo and below are at average.

  38. Use potassium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Potassium 40 is a beta emitter. Buy some kg of a potassium compound (KCl, KNO3, etc. Plenty of fertilizers are made up of potassium salts), estimate the total amount of K present in your sample, and from this chart you can easily estimate the total activity of your sample. If you are lazy, the 0.0117% of your potassium is radioactive. Estimating the amount of radiations emitted in a second and how to estimate the expected number of counts hitting your Geiger detector is a trivial exercise, that you should be capable of performing, since you want to succesfully calibrate and use a Geiger counter.

  39. Don't worry - be healthy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You can purchase an exempt quantity Cs-137 check source from several vendors, Isotope Products, Inc is one. Probably run around a hundred bucks. Exempt quantity is the amount below which a license is not required for possession. for Cs-137 it's 10 uCi, which is strong enough to get a decent reading on a GM instrument. What you really should do is send the instrument to a calibration facility like Ludlum Instruments in TX and have it calibrated to a NIST traceable source. Once you have a calibrated instrument, you need to know what you're looking for. If you're testing food, you need a thin window GM, capable of reading in counts per minute and you want to see 100 cpm above background, which is a common release limit in the nuclear industry based on a 10% instrument efficiency. If your geiger counter doesn't have a thin window detector, it's probably not sensitive enough to detect minimally contaminated foods. I'm sorry to say that most of the detectors available to the public are useless in detecting the levels of contamination you'll be looking for. I think your best bet is to wash your food thoroughly and trust that the government of Japan is monitoring the levels carefully. Try not to panic. The stress of worry is much more harmful than any radiation exposure you're likely to receive.

  40. Plutonium by phagstrom · · Score: 1

    Plutonium should be available in every corner drugstore by now....if not....talk to some Libyens....they may want to trade with some used pinball machine parts.

  41. Though I know there is a lot of concern... by Tsian · · Score: 1

    As a resident of Japan, it strikes me as far more productive to donate the money I would use to buy a Geiger counter to disaster relief aimed at helping those more directly affected by the quake and tsunami. The government has been strictly monitoring levels in food and has been quite quick to prevent shipments of any food which might present even a small risk.

  42. Wait, what? by MrEricSir · · Score: 3, Funny

    Vaseline is radioactive?! So you're saying I shouldn't be using it to, you know, wax my carrot?

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean wax your MUTOR?

    2. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying I shouldn't be using it to, you know, wax my carrot?

      Not if you're worried about it turning into a monster!

    3. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carrots aren't the problem, it's when you wax your banana that the radiation combines and you'll have a problem

  43. Radiation badge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is why radiation badges were invented. Doesn't require much intervention or thought. Might not be perfect for this application, but they are relatively cheap and plentiful. Probably set for higher doses than required, but it's an idea.

    1. Re:Radiation badge by CnlPepper · · Score: 1

      Radiation badges are for exposure tracking, not preemptive exposure control.

  44. Banana's by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

    Use this chart and a bushel of bananas.

    --
    Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  45. Calibration by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    You get a caesium source and measure the radiation level with a known good instrument, and the instrument you want to calibrate. The physics department of any good university should be able to do this. Its a standard prac exercise.

  46. Hire a professional by predatormc · · Score: 1

    The results you are going to get testing foodstuffs with a Gieger-Muller are going to be poor, almost certainly the levels of radiation in food are so low that the statistical fluctuations in the background count rate will render your results useless. You are definitely going to have to invest in some lead shielding to remove some of the background count to determine anything useful from your data. To do this properly I would recommend a more sensitive detector such as HPGe or an inorganic scintillator to actually determine the radioactive source content for proper analysis of the risks. I regret that someone is profiting horribly from the sale of GM tubes to people who are naturally scared for their health but have no idea how to use them and most importantly how to interpret the data they produce. Alpha particle emitters in foodstuffs are the most dangerous (tissue weighting factor x20 compared to gamma) but they will not be detected with a GM tube unless you place the source inside the tube itself. GM tubes with a thin window are quite good at detecting beta-particle emitters which are also harmful but it will be difficult to tell what source is actually emitting the radiation and the energy of the beta particles. The efficiency of a GM tube isn't that great with gamma radiation because it's so penetrating and gas naturally isn't very dense. As mentioned already calibration with a Cs-137 gamma source and a Sr-90 beta source by a should be carried out for a GM tube regularly, the efficiency of the detector can be calculated using some simple geometry calculations.

  47. Try this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.ehow.com/how_6786889_calibrate-geiger-counter.html

    and im guessing you have something like this to send there.
    http://www.coleparmer.com/catalog/product_view.asp?sku=0899050

  48. Spend the big money ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... on getting proper calibration equipment.

    Recoup the expenditure by playing on the paranoia of others that they should be suspicious of the calibration of their own Geiger counters.

  49. FiestaWare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Red/Orange FiestaWare from the 1930s

    http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/consumer%20products/fiesta.htm

  50. Fun with Geiger Counters by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    1. Set the scale on as low as possible and watch people freak when the needle pegs ...

    2. When responding to a reported incident, set the scale as high as possible so people feel safe and don't panic since all they hear is a slow tick...tick...

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  51. Plenty of Geiger counters on ebay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a couple of Geiger counters, including one I made and calibrated in college. I noticed right after the Fukushima accident that on ebay, Geiger counter bids and prices went way up fast, but there are plenty of them there.

    Clocks and watches (and other things) were painted with a glow-in-the-dark paint containing Radium, phosphorus, etc. many years ago, and you can still find them here and there.

    By far best advice: purchase a calibrated source!

  52. Testing phase... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try using it in Japan! Oh your already there! Great!

  53. Just use a rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Granite is a natural source of radiation, like most natural stones. However, some granites have been reported to have higher radioactivity thereby raising some concerns about their safety.

    Some granites contain around 10 to 20 parts per million of uranium.

  54. Bubble Detector by BodeNGE · · Score: 1

    Eschew Geiger, using a bubble detector is very straightforward and they are pre calibrated. As Neutrons pass through it they displace bubbles. They come in several "strengths" for good dosage metering over time. Shake to reset.

  55. Don't. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 4, Informative

    geiger counters for testing food and other materials

    Geiger counters are absolutely useless for testing anything other than minerals, background radiation and things like ventilation ducts (surprisingly a major collector of everything radioactive). After Chernobyl disaster I made, used and later calibrated a simple Geiger-counter-based ionizing radiation meter, and it was useful to determine how contaminated the areas around my city (Gomel) were. The result was exactly the same as what was confirmed later -- some short-lived contamination within the city (easily attributable to I-131 due to distinctive half-life around a week), mostly clean to the southwest, more contamination (longer-lived, counter was useless for determining its nature but later I have learned that it was Sr-90, Cs-134 and Cs-137) to the northeast.

    However to test anything that even resembles food, you need a gamma spectrometer, complete with a test chamber made of lead bricks. I happened to participate in those measurements much later, and I am certain, Japanese environmental/food safety authorities are already using something similar now. You have absolutely no chance to get anything close to it on your own, so just don't.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    1. Re:Don't. by Attila+the+Bun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You have absolutely no chance to get anything close to it on your own, so just don't.

      I'm afraid this is pretty much true, although the hobbyist in me doesn't like to admit it.

      The amount of radioactivity you're looking for is small compared to natural background, and small even compared to the normal variations in background. To identify any un-natural contamination you'll need a detector capable of distinguishing different isotopes, in a low-background environment, and it'll need to be regularly calibrated with standard sources. That entails a lot more gear than a Geiger-Muller tube, all of which is very very expensive, not to say tricky to operate.

      With a GM counter about the best you can do is to try to measure the radioactive decay of a sample, although most relevant isotopes have very long lifetimes which will be too hard to measure. 131-iodine is easy to detect and has a measurable half-life at 8 days, but I expect the authorities would find it before you do, and anyway most of it has gone by now.

      Alternatively you might befriend a physicist at your nearest nuclear research institute. Even then he or she will need to be quite a good friend, because the time and effort involved is significant, and this kind of expensive gear tends to be permanently in-use.

    2. Re:Don't. by vlm · · Score: 1

      You have absolutely no chance to get anything close to it on your own, so just don't.

      We disagree

      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/GammaSpectrometry

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. A geiger counter is useful for simply know if you are entering into a radioactive area, and is not necessary to be a nuclear physicist to understand that when the machine starts beeping is because you have something radioactive around.

    4. Re:Don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "After Chernobyl disaster I made, used and later calibrated a simple Geiger-counter-based ionizing radiation meter, and it was useful to determine how contaminated the areas around my city (Gomel) were."

      Gomel, in SE Belarus? I can see why you were so interested!

    5. Re:Don't. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      And you can see on the map that my observations were correct. There were contaminated spots to the northeast from Gomel while city itself and especially area to the west and south were pretty much clean, despite being closer to the power plant.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    6. Re:Don't. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Spectrometer and probe will cost $4K -- but apparently without sufficient shielding and equipment to prepare food samples, so those things will have to be obtained or built separately. Not exactly beyond being affordable for a determined individual, but unless someone has huge amount of contaminated and uncontaminated samples to test, or a good reason to distrust people who are already doing it, it's not exactly useful.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    7. Re:Don't. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      But contaminated areas are already known. It's not like chunks of reactor are thrown all across Japan and are lying around undiscovered.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  56. Regular salt - it contains potassium-40 by pepax · · Score: 5, Informative

    Use common kitchen salt (NaCl). It contains a small amount of potassium chloride (KCl). The amount of KCl in the salt you buy should be listed on the packaging. 0.012% of the KCl present will contain a naturally occurring radioactive isotope of potassium, potassium-40 (half-life of 1.3 billion years). So, if you weigh the amount of salt you test with your Geiger counter, you should be able to figure out how much potassium-40 you have. The specific activity of potassium-40 is 0.0000071 Curie/gram. One Curie is 3.7×10^10 decays per second, so one gram of potassium-40 should give you 263000 decays per second, one milligram of potassium-40 should give you 263 decays/second, and so on. By comparing your measurement results to what you would expect, you can tell how well your Geiger counter is performing. Be ready to measure for at least several minutes, though.

    1. Re:Regular salt - it contains potassium-40 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up - informative!

    2. Re:Regular salt - it contains potassium-40 by squizzar · · Score: 1

      That's quite a lot of activity. Which when you have people shouting 'One single piece of ionizing radiation can cause mutations that lead to cancer, we should ban everything nuclear' makes me think that we should all be dead already. It's almost like it's not as bad as those people make out...

    3. Re:Regular salt - it contains potassium-40 by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

      How about using a salt substitute, which is almost pure KCl? That works a lot better. Much higher activity, and the amount of K present is easy to calculate.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    4. Re:Regular salt - it contains potassium-40 by arisvega · · Score: 5, Insightful

      one milligram of potassium-40 should give you 263 decays/second, and so on.

      You have a good idea there but all these are rough estimates. The actual counts would depend on the distance from the source (in effect the solid angle), the instrument's sensitivity, the source's geometry and other stuff I may be forgetting.

      I have done instrument calibration (as a student, not as a lab manager, so I am not an expert by far) on both Geiger-Müller counters and solid state detectors. Calibration was mandatory before the actual measurements took place. Even in laboratory conditions, with experts running around and helping out, point sources and 0.5mm accuracy on distances and the like, let's just say that they turned out to be not the easiest instruments to use, and people where ending up being off (but not way off) in their estimates for the actual activity of the radioactive sources.

      Furthermore, there are different 'types' of 'radiation'- alpha, beta, gamma, neutrons. Depending on your counter/instrument, you could measure on or more of these; also there is math to be done afterwards; some instruments (like G/M) measure just 'counts' (the event when a particle 'hits' the detector), others can give more detail. And you need to do some math afterwards, unless the instrument itself does it for you.

      My punchline; its use is not trivial, it needs some training (not impossible, though). In times of need such as these I would assume that the few instruments that find their way to Japan would be put to much much better use if they are delivered to experts.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    5. Re:Regular salt - it contains potassium-40 by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      IF you listen to the nutjobs? yes.
      If you listen to scientists that know what he hell they are talking about.... My rock collection has 2 nice pieces of uranium ore in it. yet the stone walls of my home out out 12X more radiation than the uranium in my basement.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:Regular salt - it contains potassium-40 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is probably below detection limits -- not because of the sensitivity of typical Geiger counters isn't theoretically able to detect that, but because background sources from all around you will contribute too, and 0.012% 40K in whatever KCl is in table salt is nothing by comparison to those. The signal will be swamped. With a real Geiger counter set at high sensitivity, you'll hear a steady peck-peck-peck of radioactive particles from the environment. With a high enough sensitivity, it will be a steady buzz. If I take a typical granite or clay sample, which contain many times more K than in table salt (up to several weight percent), it can sometimes still be difficult to differentiate them from background with any Geiger counter I've used, like this old classic. 40K has a fairly slow decay rate too (a half-life of ~1.250 billion years), but if you get pure KCl, it is probably detectable.

      Many Geiger counters come with their own radiation source for calibration purposes, although obviously they wear out with time due to decay. I'd say if you don't get a calibration source with your Geiger counter purchase, then it probably isn't a very good one, because you have no way of verifying that it is working.

      Also, be aware that while Geiger counters detect gamma rays, they don't detect beta rays unless they have the right window over the tube, and it is unusual for them to detect alpha radiation at all unless they've been geared up with a special probe. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that you could reliably test for potential food contamination of any significance with an ordinary Geiger counter without careful laboratory calibration of both the instrument and the materials you are testing (i.e. food samples that are "known to be non-radioactive"). A Geiger counter tells you "it's hot" to varying degrees. It probably won't be able to tell the difference between an ordinary uncontaminated banana (plenty of K) and a contaminated cucumber, or maybe even the difference between cucumbers grown in different soil nutrients or with a little bit of clay on them. There is going to be a lot of natural variation between foods. We're talking about vanishingly small amounts of radioactive material, and trying to differentiate those from background isn't easy. To do anything useful you probably need an instrument tuned to the particular gamma ray frequencies of the isotopes that are greatest biological concern, such as isotopes of iodine, cesium, and strontium.

      Unless you know you're buying and eating food from within the contaminated region (for some strange reason), the best bet is probably to trust the Japanese food inspectors and to wash food thoroughly. Self-measurement of food for potential contamination by radioactive materials is likely to be an exercise in frustration with a regular Geiger counter.

    7. Re:Regular salt - it contains potassium-40 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Set critical thinking mode to ON

      Lots of data but as the great EWD once said, the credibility of an idea bears no correlation to its correctness (and viceversa). Or, more shortly put: citation needed.

      Set critical thinking mode to ... no wait, leave it on

    8. Re:Regular salt - it contains potassium-40 by pepax · · Score: 2

      Did this experiment in a radiochemistry lab class.

    9. Re:Regular salt - it contains potassium-40 by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      mod parent down, pure armchair fantasy bullshit.

      You won't get any noticeable measurement above background with table salt.

    10. Re:Regular salt - it contains potassium-40 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't going to see any significant reading above background using regular table salt with a typical handheld geiger counter. There is just not enough KCl in it.

      Even with salt substitute (almost 100% KCl), you will need to conduct carefully controlled experiments to see a significant difference from background radiation. I have my students do this in a high school lab using a scaler to practice experimental methods and to observe KCl and other natural and virtually harmless radioactive sources.

    11. Re:Regular salt - it contains potassium-40 by danlip · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I'm gong to have to take you analysis with a grain of salt.

    12. Re:Regular salt - it contains potassium-40 by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Potassium-40 is a beta emitter, it unlikely that an instrument that is not specifically designed for scientific or nuclear survey work is going to give better than "curious amateur" accuracy measuring it; you'll note that most adverts for Alpha or Beta detectors talk about detection, not measuring, especially for Alpha. What he really wants is a Scintillation Detector, a GM tube entrance window is either too thick for alpha to penetrate reliably or too thin to hold up mechanically, even beta is a crap shoot with consumer grade GM instruments.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    13. Re:Regular salt - it contains potassium-40 by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If salt (and/or salt substitute) were radioactive to the extent that it's measurable above background, then wouldn't people who spend a long time in proximity to large amounts of it - those who mine it, refine it and transport it - be dropping like flies?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:Regular salt - it contains potassium-40 by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      This is typical slashdot "We don't know the exact amount or type of radiation, and is it calibrated to exact standards it's useless, and if you're not an expert then don't even think about using them. And different countries have different levels that they consider acceptable - so give up"

      When in fact, a person can make a fair personal estimate by using a GM counter, RTFM'ing, and some rudimentary research. Then if the thing goes crazy on them, they can make a judgement that "Maybe I don't want to be here."

      I envision slashdotters refusing to use the darn things because they aren't experts, or maybe heaven forbid, the sticker on the thing is a month out of calibration, then since all the panic is from the media anyhow, walking wherever they please in unsafe areas.

      If I lived there, I'd get one of the things, learn how to use it, and use it on everything. If slashdotters don't like it, they can come over and eat the food I rejected.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  57. Sanity by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1
    John Iovine long time designer/manufacturer of Geiger counters did an interview with Make: about a month ago and his concerns were just the same as yours. There's some interesting insights in the (admittedly short) interview, but it's well worth a read.

    We have a couple of good tube suppliers, because we’ve been in the business for a while. One of them just said to me, “We’ve got shoe makers calling us up, yesterday they were making shoes, and today they want to start making Geiger counters.”

    I know exactly what he was saying. And, really, anybody can make a working Geiger counter. You just put together a high voltage circuit and detect the pulses. But how accurate is it, and what’s its longevity? It took us years to perfect making a Geiger counter—a good Geiger counter. It’s still like a black art. As with a lot of things, you really have to be in it for a while, and see all the crazy things that can happen, and this enables you to can build some resiliency into the circuit so that it will keep functioning properly.

    These people who are just looking to make a quick buck are saying, “I can build a Geiger counter.” Yeah, you can build a Geiger counter, and it will probably work on some level, but you won’t know how to calibrate the thing, or even know that it’s in the ballpark of being accurate.

  58. Geiger-Muller not Geiger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a Geiger-Muller counter, not a Geiger counter.

    1. Re:Geiger-Muller not Geiger by treeves · · Score: 1

      Bzzzt.
      It's a Geiger-Mueller tube, not a Geiger-Mueller counter. The counter, or meter, contains or connects to, a G-M tube, which is the sensor.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  59. As someone who also lives in Japan by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

    Stop giving into the paranoia and get on with your lives. You're exposed to more radiation on a daily basis than you'll ever get from potentially contaminated food. Nuclear power plant meltdowns may be scary scary, but biological damage due to food contamination is so rare as to be statistically insignificant. If you want to protect your Japanese family, tell them to stop going to restaurants and other public places that allow smoking (which is not only harmful in all the known ways, but is also slightly radioactive).

    --
    "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
  60. Follow up from the author by thesandbender · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1. I appreciate everyone's input about the comparative levels of radiation and I'm working with my g/f to translate the xkcd chart to Japanese to put things in perspective for her family (we'll be sending it to Mr. Munroe when we finish for him to post if he likes).
    2. We've already purchased Vaseline glass beads.
    3. I'm very interested in the detailed comments that testing is pointless b/c we couldn't get access to the equipment/environment needed to properly test and will be following those up.

    From a practical and scientific standpoint we both understand that the exposure they are subject to where they live is less than being at altitude on a flight to Japan. However her family and the country as a whole has been through a very traumatic event ... first from a force they can't predict (the earthquake) and now from one they can't really see (radioactive contamination). So why we can look at this objectively and say the exposure really doesn't amount to much unless you're near the site, they'll never be able to because of what they have been through. Realistically, if you survived a plane crash you'd probably be hesitant about getting on a plane even though the statistical chances of you being in two commercial plane crashes are practically 0. Just the way the human psyche works. Anyway, I would like to keep them from throwing money away if testing food is a complete impracticality (#3).

    Thanks for all the excellent input and we will be reviewing it throughly.

    1. Re:Follow up from the author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Realistically, if you survived a plane crash you'd probably be hesitant about getting on a plane even though the statistical chances of you being in two commercial plane crashes are practically 0.

      Oh crap, now we need to explain independent events and probability.

    2. Re:Follow up from the author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hi,
      Living in Miyagi (next to Fukushima) here, and i'm definitely concerned about the food here. Why ? Because the japanese people (at large) mostly don't understand the risk, and, unlike Europe or US, this contry has not a strong culture of governemental regulation;
      Just see (for the last week) those:
      http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/archive/news/2011/05/19/20110519p2a00m0na002000c.html
      http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/archive/news/2011/05/20/20110520p2a00m0na005000c.html
      http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/archive/news/2011/05/20/20110520p2g00m0dm080000c.html
      If your friend is with some young children or pregnant women, i really advice to be extra carefull and not blindly believe that "somebody at governement must have checked it". For adult, i'm not so concerned

      Also, note that xkcd char concern Air contamination, which is of a secondary concern by now, unless you're very close to Fukushima plant;

    3. Re:Follow up from the author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Individual earthquakes are not predictable, but en masse they are. Japan is an earthquake prone part of the world because it is along a major tectonic plate boundary. Japan owes its character to that geological setting (e.g., the volcanoes that make up the islands relate to the plate boundary too). That will not change, and large earthquakes will happen. I know there's not much solace in that basic knowledge, and not being able to predict individual earthquakes makes it difficult, but you should know that Japan has one of the best, if not *the* best, emergency systems for handling earthquakes of any country in the world, and those systems probably saved thousands of lives in March. Japan was better prepared then, and is better prepared now to bounce back from the tragedy than most countries in the world would be.

      Natural disasters are a part of living in the world. In Japan it's earthquakes, tsunami, and volcanoes. In the Mississippi Valley right now, it's flooding. In the Alps, it's landslides and avalanches. In Florida it's hurricanes. And there are innumerable other natural hazards everywhere, not to mention the human-made ones. The thing that stands out as a psychological factor in all of these is that we don't have control, but that's actually a myth. We can't control the occurrence of big natural events, but we can make a huge difference in people's lives as they respond to the event: history has shown that when people are empowered with information they can act to make themselves safer. People are NOT helpless. In 2004 when the tsunami occurred in Indonesia, thousands of people were killed because there was no warning system established in the Indian Ocean, no way to get information to people in a timely fashion, and people had not been generally educated about what the signs of a tsunami were. People were running out to collect fish from the exposed sea floor as the tsunami caused the sea to retreat from the shoreline. For lack of information, many people died that did not have to.

      Compare to Japan -- there were almost as many people living within the area affected by the tsunami, and while the loss of life was tragic, it would have been so much worse without warning systems and people's knowledge. People knew what it meant when the tsunami warnings came. There was a plan to evacuate coastal areas and safe places for emergency crews to go. It wasn't perfect in plan or execution, but it saved many lives. Earthquakes are different because they are so sudden there is little warning, but again there have been years of preparation in Japan. Thanks to strict building codes, most structures are safe. Compare that to earthquakes in parts of the world where building standards are lax, such as the magnitude 7.4 1990 earthquake in Iran that killed 40000 people, or the M6.6 2003 earthquake there. But there is more that people can do individually, such as knowing where to go in their dwelling or workplace the moment when an earthquake strikes (e.g., doorways and closets are safest), and what to do after. None of this is a guarantee of safety, but people are not powerless when disaster strikes if they have a plan and have invested in preparations. Individual education is key. Responsible governments in earthquake-prone parts of the world educate people about what to do. I hate to pick on Iran again, but read this, and be appalled.

      We can't predict or stop many of these events. But education about them can make an enormous difference in people's lives if people act on it. It won't make the fear and loss go away when tragedy happens, but it is a mistake to give in to those fears and think that we can't do much. It's not merely about learning to live with the risks, but to figure out what we can do about mitigating them, because usually there IS something

    4. Re:Follow up from the author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving people the tools to understand their world is a noble thing, even if the results are not terribly actionable in the short term. It sounds like they want to have some control over their health and environment. If a crash course in radiology and some poking around with testing equipment does that for them, that sounds like money well spent. You mileage may vary, of course, as an unpredictable and opaque piece of hardware may be more frustrating than empowering.

    5. Re:Follow up from the author by ImprovOmega · · Score: 2

      His statement is correct, in that your statistical chances of being in even one commercial plane crash is practically 0. So the odds of being in a second commercial plane crash after the first one remains practically 0. The implied dependence is wrong, but the statement itself is not strictly incorrect.

  61. Handheld detectors are NOT for food rad testing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > "My girlfriend's family lives in Japan and is very interested in obtaining geiger counters for testing food and other materials.

    For this very purpose you would choose specialized food-tester equipment, like this:

    http://www.gammatech.hu/img/products/ih111l.jpg
    and this
    http://www.gammatech.hu/dl.php?lang=hun&file=ih111.pdf&cat=datasheets

    Used by the hungarian military for field-mobile food and drink testing, hence the "beautiful" dark green casing with the "stylish" lead door hinge. The device measures beta and gamma rays simultaneously, according to stored patterns, to understand short-lived and long-lived isotopic composition. Mostly Iodine-131 and Caesium-137 contamination are important, but all are measured. In 10 seconds, the device's small LCD screen returns four possible simple answers on a sample: can consume now, wait 3 days, wait 1 week or discard immediately, as defined by European Union and NATO regulations.

    (Attach a Windows PC with MultiACT software and you can download numerical measurement results from the IH-111L device for further lab office work. Calibration source is built into the device. The full suite, device and software is supposedly available for civilians, but probably only for companies, rather than individuals, but I saw it being advertised in the press after March 11.)

  62. Also: The Banana Equivalent Dose by thesandbender · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

    Found it while I was researching and quantifies what many of you have been pointing out about the effective level of contamination.

  63. Curiosty kills the cat. by westlake · · Score: 1

    (I) really would like to go there by bicycle (almost impossible to get in by car because they have barricaded off most of the area, but from what people have said, it's pretty easy to sneak in on foot or cycle).

    Why are you trying to slip past the barricades?

    Do you really want to be asked this question in a Japanese lock-up?

  64. How to test a geiger counter -- READ THIS by Proudrooster · · Score: 3, Informative

    First off, a smoke detector is not a good source for testing a geiger counter. The high voltage gas canister inside is usually tuned for Cesium and Americium (the source in a smoke detector) usually gives a false high reading.

    To test properly, you need a known source. The better counters come with a source, usually taped to the side of the unit, but you can get sources off of Ebay.
    http://cgi.ebay.com/Radioactive-Mantle-Geiger-Counter-Detector-Test-Source-/160587370187?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2563c0cecb

    I don't have much time this morning, so here is an excerpt from my radiation monitor manual for how it works and what it detects. Good luck.

    How the Radiation Monitor Works The Radiation Monitor senses ionizing radiation by means of a Geiger-Mueller (GM) tube. The tube is fully enclosed inside the instrument. When ionizing radiation or a particle strikes the tube, it is sensed electronically and monitored by its own display, a computer, or by a flashing count light. When the switch is in the AUDIO position, the instrument will also beep with each ionizing event. It is calibrated for Cesium-137, but also serves as an excellent indicator of relative intensities for other sources of ionizing radiation. Gamma radiation is measured in milli-Roentgens per hour. Alpha and beta are measured in counts/minute (CPM). About 5 to 25 counts at random intervals (depending on location and altitude) can be expected every minute from naturally occurring background radiation. The end of the GM tube has a thin mica window. This mica window is protected by the screen at the end of the sensor. It allows alpha particles to reach the GM tube and be detected. The mica window will also sense low energy beta particles and gamma radiation that cannot penetrate the plastic case or the side of the tube. Note: Some very low energy radiation cannot be detected through the mica window. The Radiation Monitor does not detect neutron, microwave, radio frequency (RF), laser, infrared, or ultraviolet radiation. It is calibrated for Cesium-137, and is most accurate for it and other isotopes of similar energies. Some isotopes it will detect relatively well are cobalt-60, technicium-99m, phosphorus-32, and strontium-90. Some types of radiation are very difficult or impossible for this GM tube to detect. Beta emissions from tritium are too weak to detect using the Radiation Monitor. Americium-241, used in some smoke detectors, can overexcite the GM tube and give an indication of a higher level of radiation than is actually there.

  65. AN/PDR-27 by e3m4n · · Score: 1

    There are several different kind of detectors depending on what type of radiation/contamination you are looking to measure. A 'geiger counter' is, more accurately, a Geiger-Meuller detector that measures gamma radiation (photons) but does not accurately measure neutrons, alpha's or surface contamination. It works on an anode and cathode principle where inbound gamma's excite electrons into escaping their atoms (aka the photoelectric effect). In your case you may benefit better by taking a portable air sample and frisking the paper filter. Perhaps you can get ahold of some old military versions, as long as they still work. The devices I am familiar with are:

    AN/PDR-27 gamma detector, most iconic device commonly referred to as a geiger counter
    AN/PDR-56 alpha survey meter . Detects helium ions
    AN/PDR-70 neutron detector, has outer poly sheilding to simulate the effect on human tissue

  66. Test Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've no idea if they still do (probably don't), but they used to generally have a test source right on the machine that put out just enough radiation that you could stick the input cylinder right up to it and get something.

  67. I have two for sale by WillRobinson · · Score: 2

    If you really need two, I have some. want much and if it would like them pm me. I have them on Craigslist in Dallas. I would rather help a fellow slashdotter. They were always calibrated, but the cal sticker ran out last year. Just pm me.

  68. Don't get one. get a gammaspectrometer by praedictus · · Score: 1

    If you have cash to splurge get a gammaspectrometer rather than a geiger counter. It will actually give you an idea of the elements involved. Modern models dont need an internal cesium reference so you can measure that as well. You may have to set up new regions of interest (ROIs) for the exotic isotopes, they usually come set for uranium, thorium, and potassium, with a window for cosmic, plus total count which includes everything.

    --
    Watashi wa chikyubutsurigakusha desu.
  69. Thorium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I once purchased a small Thorium rock form eBay to test a home-made Geiger Counter. It is relatively inexpensive.

  70. Background radiation -- was Re:Vaseline glass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all live with background radiation, which varies significantly by location. No one seems to worry about that when they pick a place to live, but everyone gets apoplectic about much smaller amounts of radiation released by reactor accidents.

  71. Mea Culpa by thesandbender · · Score: 1

    Probably be a waste of your time, I had a math professor or two try to and you see how much good it did ;-)

    1. Re:Mea Culpa by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      Probably be a waste of your time, I had a math professor or two try to and you see how much good it did ;-)

      Well, in that case I definitely want to give it a try. Not with the intention of berating you or anything, just because it's an often misunderstood thing, and it's not really that complicated.

      If you're going to flip two fair coins, one after the other, the chances of you getting two heads is 25% (chance of getting heads on first flip (50%) * chances of getting heads on the second flip (50%) = 25%). After you flip the first coin, if you got heads, the chances of getting two heads in a row is now (chance of getting heads on first flip (100%) * chances of getting heads on the second flip (50%)). Basically, flipping a coin doesn't affect your chances for any other flips, they are all independent events, and it's always 50% chance heads, 50% chance tails.

      In your example, the chances of being in two commercial aircraft crashes is lower than the chance of being in one aircraft craft if you've never been in an aircraft accident before, but only because you've gotta "win" twice. Being in an accident doesn't make you any safer, so you're just as likely of being in an aircraft accident the second time as you were in the first (which is pretty damn unlikely, so I understand your original point).

  72. Geiger counters are useless - cesium in urine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geiger counters are only useful at detecting if there is a background radiation hazard. They are useless for food.

    You might as well point it at yourself and see if you can detect anything, and you will not even though it should be going like mad.

    If you want to detect if you have eaten too much radiation, like Cesium, then have your urine tested. You will be peeing Cesium out at a known rate and your total dose can be determined. Anything else is useless.

    I'm certain Japan may have that test available as a measure of tracking contamination. And yes, your urine is radioactive naturally thanks to potassium and heap-ton of other isotopes.

  73. It comes with a test source by ue85 · · Score: 1

    Every geiger I have used in my life (which have been a lot) have come with a test source (Cs-137 disc) attached to the side. Maybe this is a Canada thing or a Ludlum thing but yeah they SHOULD come with a Cs-137 calibrated disc. Else you could find some fiesta dinnerware which is slightly radioactive, I think orange is the greatest emitting.

  74. You buy some uranium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  75. How To Test Geiger Counters by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

    I don't know about the new ones, but the old yellow Civil Defense Geiger counters have a small uranium check source under a label on the side. It has a very long half life so for all practical purposes the counts are stable even after 50 years.

    Old Coleman lantern mantles are thoriated (why you do not want to breathe the dust when changing one out) and put out 1200 to 2500+ counts per minute (1.80 - 3.75 mR/hr). Even "Lite Salt" is somewhat radioactive because there is a significant potassium isotope that is radioactive. You would have to know the counts for a certain amount of salt, but it should be pretty straightforward to calculate. I'm sure Wikipedia has lots more examples.

    It's important to know the difference between Geiger counters and "survey meters". Geiger counters are much more sensitive and show counts on lower ranges. Survey meters are for higher levels of radiation. It could be in Japan you need both depending on where the girlfriend's family lives, but I would bet a Geiger counter would be sufficient.

  76. Look Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just didn't look very well. We just bought another 10 Geiger counters for our Physics classes a few weeks ago. IMHO, the cheapest/best value are from Vernier (www.vernier.com). Any scientific supply company has these things.

    By the way, they are digital now. No more big yellow boxes with a huge battery!

  77. Uranium demo. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you MUST get a GM detector, get wone with a thin Mylar windo, or you won't see anything but gamma radiation.

    here is an intereting demo.

    Purchase a coleman lantern mantel. These are considered to be "safe" for general use.

    Last time I checked, they have a good ammount of uranium a strong beta emitter (if I recall). Not sure why they put it in. I think it may blow brightly when hot.

    Get a reading of background radiation.

    Hold the mantle up to the mylar coverd part of the detector. It just scream (if it has a clicker).

    Put a sheet of notebook paper between the detector and the source. The reading should drop. Repeat untill the reading is back to background.

    If you can find an old Plutonium oe Amarecium based smoke detector, you can do this for alpha radiation also.

    Forget using a GM detector for checking food. For the most part, GM detector efficiecy is far less than 5%, even for alpha and beta radiation with a thin window. In general, if you can detect ANY contamination with one of these devices, you have a big problem.

    In general, unless you want to make the above kind of demo, don't waste your money.

    And yes, I have worked as a Nuclear Physicist (before I becam esenile and retired), and calibrated these detectors.

  78. potassium-40 is a lousy check source by DCFusor · · Score: 1

    I do nuclear research for a living in a lab I own, check my site for some info. Potassium isn't so hot, it's barely out of a low background in my lab on a very nice 6" NaI:Tl gamma spectrometer, and since you eat it daily, that's a good thing indeed. Our geiger counters can usually not see a jar of KNO3 out of the cosmic background -- partly because the sensing mechanism in a geiger tube doesn't see gammas all that well -- you want a scintillator based detector for that.

    Here's some threads on detectors: http://www.coultersmithing.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=11

    Most nuclear waste products and fuel produce either beta (electrons) or alpha (He nuclei) which geiger counters see quite well, especially the thin window types. That's what you want, and many are available or the parts for them, on places like ebay. The tiny ones based on Russian tubes the size of a pencil aren't that great, lousy quantum efficiency, but that's not hardly a blanket condemnation of them, since even a relatively numb sensor will still tell you "you're going to die" a long time before you're in trouble. The ones to really avoid are the ion chamber based old CDV models for civil defense -- they won't read jack on a box of rocks (U ore) so hot they'll burn you.

    It's not hard for any EE type hacker to make a counter if you can find the tubes surplus, which is how we do it. Plenty of good Russian new-old-stock out there cheap, and all it needs is an appropriate power supply in the few hundred volt range, a series resistor in the 1 meg region, and a coupling cap in the hundred pf region to be able to drive cmos logic directly -- the rest is left to the student. We use inexpensive CCFL inverters and fast diodes and caps to do the HV supply -- the older ones are quite good for this, the new ones with dimming aren't what's wanted. You can control the HV output by regulating the LV input to the CCFL with a simple 3 terminal regulator - they run all the way down to about 1 volt - even the 12 volt input types, and the output scales with the input.

    It's true that a decent geiger counter or the better "gamma scout" are hard to find right now, the demand way outstripped the supply on the event in Japan. There are other issues with the TSA and others buying up all the good detectors for neutrons (rare He isotope based) and so forth - but there's a lot of used stuff around that's still quite good if you look. Just avoid the old civil defense stuff and dosimeter pens -- they really stink. I've had one of those pens in a box of U ore for months and it's barely started to read at all.

    A typical 2" diameter window pancake geiger tube will read about 100 cpm here on cosmic background for reference. A smoke detector source right on it will be in the 10k cpm range, as will a little bit of yellowcake in a test sample. A CS-137 cal sample will read quite high 14k cpm (it is rated at .25 microcurie)-- and those are considered "safe" to have in the lab, outside of a lead pig.

    Yes, there is plenty of controversy about what constitutes "safe" and there are even people who believe in hormesis -- that a little is good for you. Whatever your personal religion -- don't get alpha or beta sources inside you (eat them) because then you are going to absorb 100% of the radiation they produce, and most often they sequester in some bad place for that. I would point out that moderate amounts of radiation mainly increase risk of cancer in the out years -- so if you're already old, maybe not such a worry as if you're pretty young. I might get cancer from the radiation I've been exposed to - but it will have to reach down into my grave to get me 30 years out.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  79. There is no such thing as safe limits. by the_raptor · · Score: 1

    As mentioned earlier in the thread "safe" limits for ionising radiation don't exist. One single particle could be the one that hits a critical bit of DNA and gives you lethal cancer, or a billion particles could pass right through you and cause no damage. The "safety" limits set by government bodies are based on poor science and are complete bullshit.

    Oh and also ALL food has radioactive particles. It did before atmospheric nuclear testing, and it especially does after all the atmospheric testing that went on. The fact is that unless a piece of food is INCREDIBLY contaminated it is no more a risk then the thousands of risky things we humans do every day and don't even think about.

    Those who die from cancer caused by this leak will be out weighed a thousand times by those who die in car accidents, easily preventable infectious disease, and diet related disease. Let alone minor stuff like carcinogenic fumes released from the plastic that most Japanese homes are packed full of.

    Spending hundreds of dollars (probably closer to a thousand in the current panic) on a radiation detector and then continuing to drive a car is the sign of an irrational person with no capacity for risk assessment.

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
  80. homebuilt radiation detectors by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2

    If you want a cheap radiation source, you can buy 2% thoriated tungsten rods for TIG welding. Find a local store and buy a 1/16" rod: individually they only cost about $8. Other people have suggested Coleman lantern mantles but the ones you can buy these days don't seem to have thorium in them anymore, because the old ones were *seriously* radioactive. If you *have* a Geiger counter you can go to an Army/Navy Surplus store and check the ones they have since a lot of old radioactive ones are still in stock.

    My homebuilt geiger counter, using a surplus Russian GM tube, can easily detect a single thoriated tungsten rod if held up close to the tube, as can my vintage Civil Defense CDV700. Both will also detect a smoke detector.

    If you want to build your own geiger counter and have a tube, here are instructions for building a high voltage power supply from a hacked-up flash unit from a disposable camera and here is the detector circuit that translates that into audible clicks. If you optoisolate that detector circuit you can feed it into an Arduino and log/display counts per second on a laptop. (It needs optoisolation because the output of the audio click board is negative with respect to power and way more than 5V, so it'll cook an Arduino, as I found out. Although an Arduino analog input can withstand -200V and still function, amazingly enough.)

    If you just want to detect ionizing radiation, you can build an ionization chamber. My company supplies DIY kits but we also have detailed instructions for making your own with a component list of like four transistors and a handful of resistors, and a tin can. They're more sensitive than a Geiger tube, although they're much slower to react, taking seconds to change their reading. One neat thing is you can build them as chambers so you can actually put a sample inside the chamber, if you want, and they detect alpha, beta, and gamma.

    And as other people have said, any sample you buy that'll allow you to characterize your radiation detector will expose you to tens to thousands of times as much radiation as anything in Japan unless you're actually inside the grounds of the power plant, so this whole project might not do what you want.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  81. ny state radiation detection is illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ever since three mile island

    you gotta go out of state, but not sure where.

  82. Yeah Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have a girlfriend, and you post on slashdot???

  83. That's not how you count food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a radiation expert in Oak Ridge. I have counted food routinely, even samples collected after Chernobyl. Merely measuring the radiation from food isn't sufficient to estimate how much exposure a person would get from eating the food. I realize the easiest path might be to not eat things that were measureably higher than background, but that may not be valid as (1) some foods _naturally_ have more radioactivity than others and (2) the background fluctuates at all scales. If I count my spinach and then the background, it may be higher or lower, randomly. That randomness may hide levels that you don't wish to eat. Or it could be fine and appear high because the background ran low for that period. Not to mention that Geiger counters only measure gamma radiation and beta radiation strong enough to make it into the probe. It cannot see low energy beta radiation or alpha radiation at all. I am sorry that I have no do-it-youself replacement solution but I would not attempt to judge food armed solely with a Geiger Counter.

    1. Re:That's not how you count food by PPH · · Score: 1

      I'm no nuclear scientist, but I'd think that one thing you'd want to check in the food supply is the levels of different isotopes. Its not just the radioactivity, but what they bind to, how they concentrate and subsequently damage inside the body.

      Chemicals that normally get flushed straight through would be less of a risk than something like iodine, which the thyroid gland soaks up. But Geiger counters have no way of differentiating between different isotopes.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  84. All psychological? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of people here seem pretty critical of others who are worrying. Worrying may be psychological and from ignorance, but I don't think it's irrational. Here's my perspective:

    -I have a two year old daughter. I used to think about love as being willing to take a bullet for someone. But it's more like I would trade a 100% chance of my death to eliminate a 10% chance of her death.
    -I don't have a strong science background. The last science courses I took were AP chem and AP physics, ten and eleven years ago. If we studied nuclear decay I don't even remember it.
    -I don't trust the government. I do have a strong background in finance - I've been interested in it and studied it since junior high school (majored in it but actually knew almost all of the undergrad material already - learned much since). In financial matters, I have seen times where US government experts (treasury and fed officials) outright lie, quite a few times where they misled, and many times when they have seriously downplayed or exaggerated risk to the population and press. I don't know how it is in other fields, but in the field I know well and can really understand, they say what they want to say and motives can be difficult to determine.
    -I am no expert on Japanese government but the little I do know suggests they are the same.
    -My time researching this stuff is worth about 2500 yen/hr to me. I spent about 12-13 hours learning about radiation after the hydrogen blasts, and another 3 hours tonight. That's about 37.5k-40k yen (US$360-400). $500-1000 on test equipment that would settle things I could probably go for; however, even the Ludlum device linked earlier (around $700) looks insufficient (says surface contamination only) and for the $10k+ devices mentioned I'd rather send my wife and daughter overseas.
    -In my 15-16 hours of research I haven't found good information about the dangers of radioactive particle ingestion. Just a lot of people talking about how small it is. I saw enough earlier to feel comfortable moving back to my home in Kanagawa but as mentioned earlier elevated levels have been discovered here.

    I do really appreciate the posts with information and explanations.
    Still researching, G

  85. "alarmist!" by jafac · · Score: 1

    Just don't worry about this at all.

    Go to the IAEA web site. Or that very interesting XKCD web graphic, showing how completely harmless all this stuff is. Like a chest x ray. Or a flight to Paraguay. Trust the Government and Industry to protect you when things are dangerous. Turn on the lights, pay your bills, and don't ask questions.

    Besides, if you detect radiation in your food, what are you going to do? Stop eating? Move to another country? Where? Where would you go that is unaffected. Just relax and accept the new "normal". :)

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  86. What to look out for by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    For the past 6 months I've been putting together a rad experiment unrelated to Fukishima. I've been all over eBay looking for samples and geiger counters.

    Many units on eBay are old Civil Defense units. These are all bright yellow and 30 to 50 years old, and come in several varieties. Of the varieties, the ONLY ONE which is worth getting is the CDV-700 model. All others are unusable for your purposes.

    For example, a CDV-715 is only useful if there is lots and lots of radiation available, as in the aftermath of a nuclear war. It's measuring range is so high that it simply cannot see radiation at small levels. Here is an example of what NOT to get:

    http://cgi.ebay.com/Gieger-Geiger-Counter-Radiation-Detector-CDV-715-/120725761857?pt=BI_Security_Fire_Protection&hash=item1c1bd0ef41

    Similar for the dosimeters. Their range is so high that they will be useless for your purposes. Also, the dosimeters tend to go bad after awhile (air leaks into the chamber), so it's likely that any units you get will not work anyway. Here is an example of what NOT to get:

    http://cgi.ebay.com/Gieger-Geiger-Counter-Radiation-Detector-CDV-715-/120725761857?pt=BI_Security_Fire_Protection&hash=item1c1bd0ef41

    A CDV-700 has about the right range, and is a very robust - if you get a working unit chances are that it will work for decades. Here is an example of what TO get (any model is OK):

    http://cgi.ebay.com/Geiger-counter-radiation-detector-CDV-700-Anton-Model-6-/330566290368?pt=BI_Security_Fire_Protection&hash=item4cf7494bc0

    Up until Fukishima, these were going for around $50 USD per unit. Now they are going for around $250.

    I've been active on the experimenter's boards for the past several months, and many people are decrying the number of scams and bad counters that unscrupulous people are selling on eBay. People are getting counters with no tubes, which don't work, or are not as advertised. I personally ordered a CDV-700 and received a dosimeter instead - there are lots and lots of bad people trying to take advantage of the situation right now.

    (The good news: If you do get a CDV-700 and it doesn't work, they're easy to fix, even for beginner electronics hobbyists.)

    I'm also advising several hobbyist groups which are designing their own geiger counters. Of 6 or so separate designs by separate groups, not one of them will be useful for your purpose, for various reasons. These units will work and will detect radiation, but there is no way to assign a meaning to the measurements. They are well suited for the purpose intended, which is measuring radiation over long periods where the measurements can be compared with measurements from the same unit, but these are not useful for your purpose. They also make good hobbyist units, to show the principles of detection.

    Measuring radiation, knowing the different types and what to look for isn't hard. It takes about 40 hours of research and reading and some tinkering to get a grasp on the problem. Do that first, then you will know better what to look for and what to buy.

    My advice: Get together with the people in your neighborhood, purchase 1 counter and share it. Not everyone needs their own counter, and lots of times only a single measurement is needed anyway (is this area clean?). Designate one person to study up on the techniques and issues, and rely on that one person to make measurements as needed and explain the results.

    It's not hard, but it takes a little dedication. Specialize and trade.

  87. And testing CDV-700 by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Also, CDV-700 units come with a small radioactive sample taped to the case, specifically for testing.

    Hold the tube next to the black dot on the side of the case (with the shield open) and you will hear lots of clicks. That will show you that the unit is working.

    Originally, the dot was manufactured so that you could roughly tell if the unit was calibrated, but over time the dots have decayed to about half their initial activity. But they still work and can still be used to test the counter.

    I couldn't find a good picture link, but the dot is well marked on the unit. It's easy to find.

  88. Would you rather have the extra radiation or not? by name_already_taken · · Score: 1

    Pretty typical logic, Occupational Exposure limits are very tight in the US, but diagnostic exposure limits are very loose. It's kind of schizophrenic for us working in dental offices where we're limited to an exposure of about 1/10 on the job of what we get as a patient from the same machines.

    Not really, unless you believe that individual patients should really really be x-rayed every year*.

    *which seems like in most cases it might just be a way to pad their bill.

    --
    Putting moderation advice in your .sig lowers your karma!
  89. Please stop the stupidity!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most all of the suggestions are utter crap. The only real way: pick up radiation calibration standards or retain the services of someone who has the same. PERIOD.

    All the other suggestions won't assure you exposed to a "safe amount" or "unsafe amount". Pretty much they "add noise" to what ever answer you might get; obfuscating more than clarifying what the Geiger Counter is telling you. Just a waste of time really. Better to just use the meter completely uncalibrated instead of using a doofus technique like described.

    Salt!! Jesus Christ on a Popsicle Stick! It doesn't get stupider as Wannabe Ignoramus advice than that. FYI, I used to work with radiation and radiation safety.

  90. geiger counter/radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    first there are 3 types of nuclear radiation Alpha Beta Gama Alpha particals are relativly weak and stoped by a few sheets of paper,, Beta particals are stronger requiring clothing levels of protection normally the risk from these is internal ingestion,, Gama is very energetic and needs in the range of several feet of earth to resist. food stuff is not directly harmed by radiation sealed goods like caned or bagged are fine once the containers are decontaminated even corn ears or potatoes can be used... radiation can be defended against by time, distance, or shielding.
    as far as testing your meter several places come to mind first is hospitals sometimes have standard testing sources. also your emergency management has meters and testing gear usually connected with the sheriff department, FEMA, department of energy(nuclear power plants),, and homeland security.

    there are some plans around for home built detectors, they look like a jar with foil leafs but i doubt the levels you will be trying to measure will will be high enough for this crude type to be useful.
    your better off relying on others for detection and directing your efforts on protection mainly use the same decences you would use against smoke, dust and pollen I hope this is useful.

  91. Why a Geiger counter is useless for testing food by mux2005 · · Score: 1

    I was in the same position that I considered buying a Geiger counter for testing food. I googled and found many people saying that you can't test food with a Geiger counter. The most specific reason given was that the reading from the food would be drowned out by background radiation. Being the sceptical type I didn't buy that reason just like that. I had this naive idea that I could point the counter at my food, wait a minute or 2, the point it away and compare the readings. So I actually did the maths. (If you find any mistakes in the computation, please do post them. And excuse me for not using the correct physical terms for the various kinds of radiation strength/dose/whatever.)

    I based my computation on this Geiger counter, which seems to be among the most popular consumer grade devices available:

    http://www.conrad.de/ce/de/product/120173/Gamma-Scout-GEIGERZAeHLER

    According to the datasheet it will give you (for gamma rays) 95 pulses per minute for a radiation of 1 uSv/h.

    Meaning that if I send gamma radiation of 1 uSv/h directly into the device it will give me an additional 95 "clicks" per minute in addition to background radiation.

    Now for the question: Why is this not good enough to identify a contaminated orange?

    We start out with the numbers from here

    http://xkcd.com/radiation/

    Now let's assume that our acceptability threshold for radiation from a single orange is 20uSv. In other words, eating a single orange gives us the same dosage as a chest x-ray. Such an orange can definitely be seen as contaminated. You would only be allowed to eat a few such oranges per year (just like chest x-rays).

    So, if our Geiger counter can not tell this orange apart from an uncontaminated orange, it is clearly useless for testing food.

    So how many ticks per minute would we expect from this orange on our Gamma Scout device?

    First we have to transfrom 20uSv absorbed dose into a dose rate. In other words, we need to compute how much radiation per time unit the orange emits. Let's assume our orange can completely pass on all of its radition within 10 hours. In reality of course it would take the orange (depending on the isotope) weeks, months or years to emit all of its radiation. So I grossly overestimate the radiation from the orange here. But the point is that even this grossly overestimated dose rate can not be detected with a consumer grade Geiger counter.
    So our dose rate would be 2uSv/h

    Now an important thing we must not overlook is that the orange is not a raygun. It doesn't emit a concentrated beam. Rather, its emission will be spread evenly across its surface.

    An orange of 8cm diameter has a surface of
    4*PI*4cm*4cm = 201 square cm

    According to the manual, the measurement window of the Gamma Scout has a diameter of 9,1mm, meaning a surface of about half a square centimeter. Let's be generous and round that to 1 square centimeter. This means that if we actually touch our Gamma Scout to the orange it will only see 1/200th of the emitted radiation. This means that the Gamma Scout sees a dose rate from the orange of 0,01uSv/h.

    And now we're beginning to see the problem. Even without background raditation that translates to only 9-10 ticks per MINUTE. You'd be waiting 6s between each tick. This is clearly not the movie-type-buzz you would expect from holding a Geiger counter to an orange as heavily contaminated as this one. And remember that I've grossly overestimated (by several orders of magnitude) the dose rate of the orange.

    Now if you do not actually touch the orange but measure from several centimeters away, the strength of the radiation decreases quadratically.

    But it gets worse.

    According to (sorry, web site in German)

    http://www.chetan.homepage.t-online.de/sonstig/DETEKT.HTM

    the normal average value

  92. Re:Would you rather have the extra radiation or no by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Full mouth radiographs once a year, individual radiograph on any tooth that's symptomatic, and again to document a root canal is finished.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  93. Testing or calibrating...? by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    There are enough common or natural sources to
    enable the testing of a geiger counter. Some of them
    are already posted so I will not add to the list.

    A GM tube triggers on an ionizing event and
    the resulting cascade is counted and/ or integrated
    and shown on a display. The cascade produces
    a dead time so the higher the count rate the more
    the detector is unavailable. This can be quantified with
    a modest source by placing it measured distances
    away and using the inverse square rule to predict the
    count. Departure from recorded to predicted let you
    calibrate the dead time.

    Most GM tubs have a glass envelope that is thick
    enough to shield from alpha particles. Beta radiation
    can be shielded by a modest shield. Gamma is
    much less attenuated. Gamma:Beta ratios can permit
    some approximation of the material that is being measured.

    Sensitivity depends on volume, large tubes can be
    more sensitive, small tubes are more durable.

    The nature of the cascade and quenching effectively makes
    all counts equal so the energy spectrum is not available
    for the most part. Scintillation counters can be better
    for energy spectrum determinations but outside the lab
    this is rare.

    For calibration the critical data involves the volume of the
    detector and efficiency. Volume is easy, efficiency
    can be evaluated by source variations often made
    by changes in distance. However a modest source
    like vaseline glass can be calibrated and then the
    unknown detector validated against it.

    For the majority of folk changes are more interesting
    perhaps important than absolute magnitude.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  94. Key-chain geiger detector by Homeopathic · · Score: 0

    I’d much prefer to use my key-chain Geiger Counter and know the actual radiation levels not just what I'm being told!