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!"

54 of 277 comments (clear)

  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 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."
    2. 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
    3. 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'.

    4. 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.
  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 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?"
    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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/

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.)

    8. 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.

  3. 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 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...

    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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 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.

    4. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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....

  10. 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 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."
  11. 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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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
  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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."
  15. 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.

  16. 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 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

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

      Did this experiment in a radiochemistry lab class.

  17. 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 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.