Does working with radioactive elements shorten your life?...

[Chris Bradley]

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/ ... 1163.story

[Joe Scherrer]

There is evidence to suggest that exposure to very small levels of radiation actually increases one's lifespan, presumably by stimulating the immune system to react to cellular damage. But nothing like Radithor of course...

[Richard Hull]

It is all about genes and luck of the draw. Biologics, like us, are far too complicated meat engines to predict to a 100 percentile level, anything related to health, survival, death, etc. This is why medical doctors are basically just educated witch doctors working from studies which are themselves very rule of thumb, but statistically backed over large control grouped tests.

After listening carefully to all the statistics, it is interesting for the clever told among us to realize that any one of us could go at any moment; for any number of reasons.

Richard Hull

[Chris Bradley]

I think we've discussed the various bi-modal effects of radiation in the past in some depth.

So my title was more intended to be a little ironic humour, as introduction to a tribute to the passing of one more of the folks who established, in very short order over a few decades, 98% of all that we know on these subjects.

Perhaps much of this science was 'inevitable' once the atom was 'unlocked', but I can't help but think there was a generation of brilliant men who were encouraged by an age when the primary aim was science, and one would focus on 'science' in university and/or career, whereas now one is obligated to focus on the 'five-year business plan', or whatever modern, grant-setting interferences lurk in wait to ambush the genius scientist who lacks a full complement of 'street-wise' attributes that might help them get to the finish line ahead of a more 'polished' but less accomplished peer. 'Mediocrity' was not a work that could be thrown at that generation.

[Joe Scherrer]

After doing a few searches on hormesis, I realized that it's been discussed here in depth before...

> Perhaps much of this science was 'inevitable' once the atom was 'unlocked', but I can't help but think there was a generation of brilliant men who were encouraged by an age when the primary aim was science, and one would focus on 'science' in university and/or career, whereas now one is obligated to focus on the 'five-year business plan', or whatever modern, grant-setting interferences lurk in wait to ambush the genius scientist who lacks a full complement of 'street-wise' attributes that might help them get to the finish line ahead of a more 'polished' but less accomplished peer. 'Mediocrity' was not a work that could be thrown at that generation.

Spot on. Sometimes I wish I was born half a century earlier...but not for too long.

[Frank Sanns]

The unknown factor is would he have lived to 105 without the radiation or maybe only 60 without it? There are many genetic and environmental variables that are not controlled so one will never know. Also, what was his lifetime dose and what was his most acute exposure and what is internal, external, and what energies and types. Without large statistical groups it will be a question that will be long controversial.

Frank Sanns

[Larry Upjohn]

Hi all;
This man's creativity was expressed in one of my favorite places to visit just down the road from here. I note from reading the obit that he was a HAM operator early on. His exposure to high voltage and unshielded RF would be considered excessive by today's overly cautious standards let alone capturing and identifying exotic transuranic elements for the first time. He was smart enough to catch that high neutron flux could produce these elements and capture the moment so to speak. (I wonder what they used in the 50's to measure neutron flux though it would not have to be to sensitive given the first thermonuclear device ignition). Enough speculation for now. Larry Upjohn

[Richard Hull]

Scientists were measuring neutrons accurately in the late 30's with high pressure methane counters, etc., and the use of a lot of statistics.

By the very early 40's BF3 counters were in common use by Manhattan District workers, but they were not a commercial item, being produced "in house", for the most part. By 1945, the big labs, but mainly Oak Ridge had large shops devoted to neutron detector construction and calibration. Shortly after WWII and certainly by the early 50's many commercial companies were making neutron counters, mostly around the BF3 tube. By the mid-fifties most of what we know about neutron counting today was already in use. From here, it was refinement and expansion on the many themes already in hand.

Later advances, (60's), came with the acquistion of larger, commercially available amounts of 3He due to decaying 3H. This allowed very sensitive and highly discrimenating detection for neutrons. Bubble technology, which is truly rather new in its portable refinement, is a great aide for low level, fast neutron detection and dosimetry.

There are a few early books, (late 40's early 50's) that discuss neutron detection in some detail noted in the Books and References section.

What has always been tough and still is, is the counting of extremely low levels of high speed neutrons to a high degree of confidence. This is the very thing that plagues the amateur fusioneer working at lower input voltages.

Richard Hull

[Larry Upjohn]

Richard;
thanks for the detail. I found this study when following up on your leads:

http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/ex ... -19050.pdf

It has probably been listed during other detector threads here. I am also off topic so will refrain. More later, Larry Upjohn.

[Richard Hull]

Larry thanks for the URL to the report. I printed out for my library.

Yes, a bit off topic. I was the offender here. It should have all gone in the radiation detection forum.

Oh Well.

Richard Hull