Does anyone here have any practical experience with radiation detectors? I am talking about devices that can give accurate measurements of background radiation levels in the environment.

I realize that when the "radon levels in houses" issue received a lot of hype. there were people touting "inexpensive home test units". I am highly skeptical of this low-dollar technology. Is there a device that is truly reliable, for a price that is not astronomical?

BTW, just to clarify. I am talking about handheld survey meters. Some models measure only beta and gamma radiation. But some can measure alpha/beta/gamma, and perhaps neutron radiation as well. That's what I am looking for.

Thanks, Pete

Are you wishing to measure radon within your dwelling? Why the skepticism about "inexpensive home test units"? I am curious, because i used a fairly reasonable test technique some years ago for my dwelling and got good results. That was then, and this is now, of course.

We picked up a radiation detector similar to the Radiation Alert Ranger / Radiation Survey Meter - a ß y x. I like this one better -- USB output and it runs on AA rather a 9V; I may upgrade. Then again, it's been 6 years since the Fukashima meltdown panic and no real need. The radiation panic following meltdown in Japan didn't really happen here, although I'm still not sure some of the oceanic die offs I read about aren't related.

Whatever, mine is only similar looking but not the same model. The specs below are quoted from the link and may be of interest.


Get a known radiation source you can use for testing.

Russ ... thanks. I will check it out. I was also wondering about calibration ... known radiation souces. Need to investigate this too.

I am not worried about Fukushima. I am very unhappy that they are dumping enormous quantities of tritium into the ocean. and i am not convinced that it's "harmless". But i am not worrying about it.

I live on the West Coast of the USA. We are watching the situation in N. Korea with a good deal of concern. Perhaps the two sides will negotiate a settlement. But right now the direction of events is moving towards a "use of force". If one or more nuclear explosions take place on the Korean peninsula, i would like to be able to monitor radiation levels independently.

I do not fear a grave threat. but the biggest thing i learned from the whole Fukushima incident ... when it comes to radiation leaks, no government ever reveals the truth. I think the public is better served if there are independemt sources of data. This also stops people from exploiting bad news and creating "false crises", if a real concern does not exist.

cheers,
Pete

I keep a couple of Geiger counters to hand and have others in long term storage.

The basic model uses a color coded bar graph display.
For those whose interest in radiation is surviving it, rather than academic study, the coarse resolution of a 7 stage display is fine.
GREEN=NORMAL
YELLOW=PREPARE TO PANIC
RED=PANIC

geiger counter

The instrument fits in a shirt pocket and is very easy to use, I understand that the emergency services use this model.
It uses standard 9 volt batteries.

I also have a couple of more sophisticated Geiger counters, but no point in recommending them as they are no longer made.

Adam ... you might want to give some thought ... exactly what level of radiation causes your instrument to jump to a YELLOW condition. When workers at nuclear labs wear a protective device, they are working in a specific location. if something goes wrong, they can.always get tested and go home. The problem for you ... if your monitor goes YELLOW ... should you keep living at your house (with the windows closed), or go to a different location?


Pete

The first yellow light comes at 0.5 micro Sieverts per hour, brief and occasional lighting of the first yellow warning lamp is to be expected at normal background radiation levels.
Prolonged lighting of this first warning would cause for mild concern. If this level was reached outdoors, then I would stay indoors. If such a level was regularly reached indoors then depending on world news I might either shelter in place or seek better shelter.
As a very rough guide, a ordinary house will reduce the radiation dose to about one tenth of that received out in the open.
A deep concrete basement but without any specific radiation protective measures will reduce the dose to about one hundredth of that received outdoors.
A crude but purpose built shelter will reduce the dose to about a thousandth of that received out in the open.

Following the news is as important as monitoring the radiation level.
How many bombs have been used, and where ?
Is the prevailing wind likely to take the fallout towards, me, or away from me ?
Are further attacks likely ?
Is the wind direction forecast to change ?

I think one of the real values of these discussions ... it encourages everyone yo educate themselves more. That includes me. I need to sit down and re-educate myself about 'safe' radiation levels. And after that, i need to ask myself all the same questions that I asked you. What level of radiation would cause me to go indoors, and seal off the windows and air leaks in my house? And what level of radiation would cause me to abandon the house comoletely and go elsewhere? I haven't got specific answers, but i need them. Now is the time for research.

Your questions are also excellent. How many bombs, or radiation hazards, hit the USA? what level of radiation at ground zero? and what are the prevailing winds?? These are exactly the answers that we need from our news sources. And I have to say that I have 0% confidence that "the system" will give them to us - in a timely manner for evacuation.

Pete

There is no simple answer to the question as to how much radiation is safe or how much is dangerous.

Low levels carry some risk, and high levels can be quickly fatal, but there is no clear dividing line.

As a CRUDE guide a dose of one Sievert is likely to be fatal, and one tenth of that dose carries significant risk.

One Sievert=one thousand milli Sieverts, or one million micro Sieverts.

Consider a dose rate of ten micro Sieverts per hour, that is many times normal background levels, but is of little short term danger.
10 micro Sieverts an hour if continued for 10,000 hours is a total of 100,000 micro Sieverts. That is one tenth of a Sievert, a significant risk. 10,000 hours is just over a year.

The same dose rate for 1,000 hours would carry some risk, a small risk by wartime or emergency conditions, but still far, far in excess of the dose and consequent risks allowed in peacetime for workers in a nuclear power plant, or nuclear weapons facility.

A lot depends on the general health of the victim, and on what medical care is available.

This might help:

Nuclear War Survival Skills

Written by people who know

Mom is taking the threat of a nuclear attack seriously. We know we need to stay indoors. She wants to get a detector to find out where the leaks are, what's safe and what isn't.

Russ recommended the Ranger and Adam 2 said the Gem 2. When it comes to detecting radiation after an attack, we know nothing. In the most basic terms, what do we need and need to know?

Jeanette Isabelle

I think it will depend in your personal situation.

Let me explain why I asked this question. I live in California, in a place where there are a lot of winds. In my location, winds from the San Joaquin Valley are funneled past my house. I know this because we have had a lot of pollen and fine dust in the air. It is getting picked up and funneled by the wind. Therefore, if there was a situation with contaminated dust in Central CA, my specific location location would not be good.

After thinking about the replies here, i decided on a very simple strategy ... for the time being. I will get a very simple device, of the type described by Adam2. This idea is attractive because "personal monitors" are much lower cost. Also, if i understand the technology, these personal monitors can "add up" your radiation exposure (compute your total radiation exposure over time). This is a good feature. I will place mine on the patio of my house, where it is protected from weather, but it will see the breeze.

My strategy is that if there is a nuclear incident, and my nuclear monitor switches to yellow, i will evacuate to a safer location. I am not saying that everyone needs to do this. My house just happens to get a lot of wind-blown dust.

I do not think that people should panic, or be overly worried about what is said in the news. I am skeptical that N. Korea could really mount an atomic bomb on a missile and send it to the USA - with a reliable chance of success. I do not think they have the capability to do this yet, and we shouldn't let their "war of words" disturb our peace. I do think that the USA is confronting N. Korea at exactly the right time :-)

I stated in another thread why I believe a nuclear attack will happen, if not now, later. It is, for this reason, I'm glad Mom is seriously considering a detector.

Jeanette Isabelle

It doesnt hurt to educate yourself and think about the options now. Sooner or later a nuclear device will be used in the world - I just hope its not on US soil. But no-one can predict the future. We don't even know what Kim Jong-Un will do in N. Korea.

Good luck and blessings.

I will post an update after i talk to various companies that sell these detectors.

Have a search around for a 'Spinthariscope'.

Ancient technology, very, very easy to make and use. They won't calculate dose for you but indicate radiation reliably, use no power supply and have no shelf life. I bought one years ago for a couple of quid, they seem to have gone up in price but maybe I am looking in the wrong place.

Also an old paraffin (kerosene) lamp mantle may be used to check if a detector is working. The old Thorium type give off significant amounts of alpha particles. Since around 1995 yttrium has been used though which is not radioactive.

Unless you have a personal space to hang out in for a very extended period - a radiation shelter stocked with lots of food, water and other supplies - what is the use of a radiation detector? The knowledge to stay inside, stay shielded as best you can, etc. would be your guiding principles. Would a detector materially alter what you do?

A detector might tell you just how bad it is out there, but since there's nothing you can do about it, who cares? I would think a good reference book on how radiation spreads, how to protect yourself from it, etc. would be the better resource to have. Knowledge.

Would a detector tell us where the leaks are so that we may patch them? What if all the patching in the world is not helping and we need to get out of Dodge very quickly?

Jeanette Isabelle

You know how sometimes when it rains you get a little and the next street gets a hosing? Radiation from a bomb is like that.

The initial radiation cannot be avoided but, by definition, does not last long. Fallout is subject to the vagaries of the wind and weather, perhaps you have none a mile away upwind from GZ, perhaps it 'rains out' and you have a lot just on you an hour later.

Fine particles go almost to space and get distributed around the world for years being diluted as they go, A ground burst also kicks up pebbles on which the radiation 'condenses' that fall out of the sky quite close and quickly. And there is everything in between. Air bursts are the most likely scenario as they do more damage (energy is not wasted digging a hole in the ground) and the fallout is minimal compared to a ground burst. You may not need to shelter for a "very extended period" probably just a couple of hours.

How do you know what you have without measuring your surroundings.

We have already experienced a nuclear war and many, many survived, even close to GZ.

You are actually very likely to survive a nuclear strike and the subsequent radiation

Radiation tends to fade quite quickly. You don't need a "very extended period". Most should be gone in a fortnight, and even 3 days will make a big difference. It's exponential.

I would hope that a survival detector would help one decide when it is safe to leave your shelter. Your probably safe to wait two weeks, but if you run out of food and means to dispose of waste after one, then being able to leave earlier could be invaluable. The alternative is to wait until the authorities give the all-clear, and who knows what criteria they are using?

This brings up a couple of points.

How many of our first responders actually have a radiation detector, and know how to use it? Police, paramedics, fire crews? I doubt that many of these units have a device that can measure radiation. So in the event of an incident with a serious radiation threat, the Gov't would need to bring in special teams. They certainly do have such teams - but i'm not sure there is any system to transfer the info to the public. The result is likely to produce a lot of confusion and fear.

Also, it seems to me that there is a big difference between "external" radiation exposure and "internal" exposure. If someone has some contaminated dirt or dust on their clothes, it should be possible to remove the garments and take a shower. Or just wash off the skin with a bucket of water. But if a person is breathing contaminated dust into their lungs - that seems like a much more serious exposure risk.

As far as the public is concerned, there are some practical problems that are really "unsolved". Not enough info and training for people to know how to deal with the risk.

Pete

I have a NukAlert and the parts for several Kearny Fallout Meters.

Can't say for the US, but in the Netherlands, every fire engine has a radiation meter.

Also in the UK.

Here - I don't know. Good question.

A quick comment. It was actually Ian's remarks on this thread that caused me to re-think the problems discussed here.

I re-evaluated, after N. Korea tested a new nuclear device, estimated to be around 100 Kilotons. This is a big step up in destructive power. A-bombs of this size are "city killers". It's not easy to find comparative charts for the effects of nuclear weapons. But one thing stands out as a truly a problem for a 100-Kilton bomb ... retinal damage.

If I am reading the data correctly, a 100-Kiloton weapon is capable of damaging the human retina from a distance of more than 100 kilometers. If you look directly at the blast - which seems very possible - the destruction to the human eye is immense. This means that there would be a huge radius around the location of the explosion where people are partially blinded, or fully blinded. Permanently. This may be the most serious problem from a large-scale nuclear explosion, even more serious than the heat or radiation.

It is certainly true that widespread fires would also be a big problem.

I suggest you read Nuclear War Survival Skills by Kearney

The only thing this manual doesn't cover is Neutron radiation which has twice the penetration of Gamma radiation.

This is a free book and can be found easily on the web.

BTW: the US used an 18 kiloton device to destroy Hiroshima and a 20 kiloton device to destroy Nagasaki.