Talk:Acute radiation syndrome/Archive 1

Use of Units
Should the units, eg rads be placed in a secondary context with the SI units described first, at the moment this is reversed. BlackAqua (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree that the unit rad should be replaced witht the Gy. Also, there is no reference to what episode of Mythbusters is being referred to when irradiating cockroaches is being described. Abiermans (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Half life query
Due to their short half-lives they have now (2004) decayed, leaving the more long-lived caesium-137 and strontium-90 as main dangers. What is the half-life of these other two? Zarxos 01:47, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Fractionation graph
Where the heck does this graph come from? Graphs convey exact physical relationships, you are providing those relationships(which are very non-trivial) without citation, or even a good excuse. "Hypothetical" or no, you need to clear up what is ment by it. Either add a citation to the relationships being modeled, or remove them for being misleading(ie, without available citation).

Somatic Damage
This term redirects here, but I couldn't easily find anything about it in the article. What gives?68.228.80.106 (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Depleted uranium bullets
I don't find any reference in this wiki related with depleted uranium bullets and the radiation poisoning.


 * You might want to do a little research on depleted uranium. Current thinking is that the radiological hazard from DU is insignificant in comparison to the chemical toxicity of various uranium compounds. -- Rydra Wong 20:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

'Detonator', the film
This article has a 1992 film called 'Detonator' referenced, starring Pierce Brosnan and Patrick Stewart, which has an elderly scientist slowly dying of radiation poisoning. There's a film with that title and date, sure, but it's Russian, it's a comedy (according to IMDB) and sure as hell doesn't star those two actors. Could the author of this reference be thinking of starring Brosnan and Michael Caine and something about nuclear weapons? Until this is cleared up I'm going to delete the reference as it's clearly wrong. Trent 900 15:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarity
While the table explaining the effects of radiation poisoning at various levels is certainly good, it's not terribly clear *how* radiation does these things. Sure, at the beginning it says radiation "interference causes particular problems for otherwise normally rapidly dividing cells," but it's not terribly specific. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 12:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The sentence before the one you quoted is more relevant, I think. Ionization is what causes "particular problems". It's hard to find good information online. You might check out this page. It sounds like ionization of DNA makes it more difficult for a cell to divide. If nothing else, it would have to at least repair the damaged DNA first. Maybe it's possible that other molecules are ionized, creating radicals that interfere with division in other ways, though; I'm really not sure. In any case, I would also like to see the explanation expanded! HorsePunchKid 19:10, 2005 May 19 (UTC)


 * Radiation destroys cells ready to undergo mitosis and inhibits mitosis. The effect is depopulation in tissues, therefore a disturbance of tissular functions.  Cells that divide most quickly are affected first : epithelium of the cornea and the small intestine, bone marrow, base of the epidermis, ovocytes and spermatogonia.  Hence the bone-marrow and intestinal syndroms, as well as the permanent infertility for woman and the temporary one among men.  (see the French article)

I added the half-lives of strontium-90 and cesium-137 to the article. Now almost everyone is happy!

24 Reference?
I regret I didn't get a chance to see much of the 2nd season, but the article on 24_(television) doesn't say anything about anyone getting radiation sickness...there's mention of bioweapons and similar, but it's not what the reference here implies. I'll keep my grimy little mouseball away from the edit page for now, but if someone who saw the 2nd season could confirm what I'm thinking, the reference should be deleted (or at least modified). 67.101.113.10


 * I don't actually know much about the show, but a quick poke on Google suggests that there was a radiation poisoning incident. See here, for example. (Warning: may be spoilers there!) HorsePunchKid 22:26, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Hi, I added the reference; I own Season 2 on DVD and have watched it multiple times. The character George Mason becomes irradiated sometime in the first four hours, in a warehouse incident en route to Bakersfield. By the way, 67.101.113.10, I highly suggest renting or buying Season 2 if you enjoy the show at all &mdash; it's much more coherent than Season 1, and is considered by many to be the best season in 24. --Poiuyt Man talk  11:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, and actually, under 24 (television), bulleted under "Major subplots", is mention of George Mason's radiation poisoning. It seems to have been there for a while. --Poiuyt Man talk  11:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for treatment info, potassium iodide
I would like to see some information on the treatment of radiation poisoning, perhaps also some mention of Potassium iodide as an augment for radition sickness prevention or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.107.195 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 August 2005
 * I made an initial try at this. --agr 11:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Note that potassium iodide only protects against internal contamination of the thyroid by radioactive isotopes, not against external and/or whole-body irradiation. Thus, it neither prevents nor cures radiation sickness. Its use is limited to the prevention of an induced thyroid cancer after a Chernobyl-like accidents. fr:User:Lachaume

Request to order the fiction section
This seems to have some references which do not directly portray radiation sickness and the dates are out of order. I believe the list should be restricted to books and films specifically dealing with radiation poisoning. Having a scene or two about this illness, or just being a more recent film or TV show should probably not be a qualification. However, it is probably necessary to include selections from TV, movies, and plays.

Grave of the Fireflies
This movie does not actually have anything to do with nuclear weapons or radiation poisoning. I am removing it from the fiction section.

Factual inaccuracies (use of Sv everywhere)
While trying to translate/adapt the article for the French Wikipédia, I started to look into the literature. And I noticed one important point : effective dose/equivalent dose shall not be used for acute irradiation.

Sources : Other quite serious papers on the topic systematically use Gy units (implies received dose) for doses >~ 1 Gy :
 * Draft of the International Commission on Radiological Protection : Dosimetric Quantities;
 * Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety (publication of the International Labor Organization), vol. 2, part VI General Hazards, chap. 48 Radiation: Ionizing.
 * Encyclopedia of the European Nuclear Society, Dose equivalent
 * Health Impacts from Acute Radiation Exposure, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Operated by Battelle for the US Department of Energy.
 * Department of Homeland Security: Working Group on Radiological Dispersal Device, Medical Preparedness and Response Subgroup

So, I fear the article needs extensive rewriting, because the two sections Table of exposure levels and symptoms and Measuring radiation dosage are flawed... In addition, I don't see any medical/scientific bibliography at the end of the article.

Régis Lachaume (feel free to leave me a message on fr:Discussion_Utilisateur:Lachaume, Toubon Law does not apply there)

Query on terminology: 'anastasis', 'walking ghost phase', 'latent phase'
I did a couple of Google searches to try to find more information about the 'walking ghost' phase and 'anastasis'. It looks to me as though every single reference on the Web to either of these terms can be traced back to Wikipedia. Every occurrence Google pulled up was set in the wording of Wikipedia, complete with typos and peculiar word choices such as 'light symptoms' and 'comparable wellbeing' (where 'mild symptoms' and 'comparative well-being' would be idiomatic). Are these terms actually used at all, except by people who picked them up in Wikipedia? I checked a couple of dictionaries: no mention of 'anastasis'.

When eventually I dug my way back into medical literature on the Web, rather than regurgitated wiki, I found that the term actually used for this period of apparent wellness is 'latent phase'. This term is not used in the Wikipedia article.


 * I have heard of the "walking ghost phase" this term was used to describe some of the radiation cases in japan which resulted from the bombing. The important thing to note is that while some of these people might had suffered a fatal dose of gamma/neutrons many of them had other mortal injurys so their pathology would have been different to examples of pure radiation cases such as the operators of irradation plants who gave themselves 10 Gy doses on entering the irradation room. Also the cases would not have been so well observed as the irradation plant operators.Cadmium


 * I have also heard reference to the "walking ghost phase", and "anastasis", although it was a few years back. Source wasn't exactly amazingly useful, but it was also notably not inspired by wikipedia. Anyone have references to cases of acute radiation poisoning? I remember reading about the "walking ghost phase" in reference to two major incidents of AMAZINGLY high levels of exposure in experimental plants.

Two terms in the article are bizarre...
"anastasis" is not the term usually used for the brief period of wellbeing. It is referred to as the "latent phase".

Similarly "walking ghost phase" seems unique to this article and others copied and pasted from it.

A friend of mine, and I, speculate that this is part of an experiment to trace the flow of (dis)information from Wikipedia and through sites which mindlessly copy-and-paste or otherwise steal information from it. Certainly, if I were going to conduct such an experiment, inserting incorrect but plausible terms in such a manner would be one method for doing so.

Perhaps these terms themselves should be sourced & properly cited.--aceslead 20:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a question ...
I am looking for information pertaining to "mild radiation poisoning". Maybe I am asking the wrong question. I believe the area we live in is "active" to at least some degree, due to the "half-life" involved in nuclear testing. There are cancers that exist here that thrive nowhere else. It's been said that there are studies about this phenomena. Eighty percent of the women who live here develop thyroid conditions. Eighty percent, seems a little high, when you take into consideration the various ethnic groups that live in the area - consuming vastly differing diets! My Vietnamese friend and her sister both developed thyroid conditions, and their diets are most definitely different than ours. What's up with the Las Vegas area of Nevada?

Stargazer20@earthlink.net

From what you write I would strongly advise you get in touch with medical health professionals rather than raise the question on wikipedia.

I agree, you should not ask the people who edit wiki for help. Go to the doctors. But this reminds me of this thing I heard on the radio about the government digging out Yukka Mountain and using it to store nuclear waste. Please do not quote me on this, for I am a 17 year old high school senior, but the two could possibly be related. --BenWhitey 02:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Anastasis"
I checked by asking a radiopharmacologist with 25 years' research experience in nuclear medicine. He had not heard of the word 'anastasis'. Take that together with the points I raised above: 'anastasis' does not occur in any medical sources on the WWW except as the personal name of an author; Google searches on 'anastasis' show hits to its use as a personal name, hits to its use as a theological term (Greek for 'resurrection'), hits to its use as the name of a particular hospital ship, and mirrors and echoes of its use in Wikipedia. I am convinced that 'anastasis' is in fact not a medical term for the period of comparative well-being in the progress of acute radiation illness.

I have, therefore, edited this article to replace 'anastasis' withthe actual medical term, 'latent phase', though I have allowed a couple of references to 'anastasis' as an alternative to stand. I have also edited the article 'anastasis' to reflect the dubious status of its use as a medical term.

Agemegos 06:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Therac-25
The Therac-25 article states the same of that name caused radiation poisoning to some cases on the order of hundreds of gray. As I cannot verify this fact, I would say it is still noteworthy to be put in this article after verification. --Abdull 17:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Therac-25 accidents are well documented (eg. IAEA report). Indeed doses as high as a few hundreds of gray were delivered but locally, not to the whole body.  It provoked severe radiation burns but no acute radiation symptoms. They are therefore not eligible for this article. Lachaume 22:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for examples
The usefulness of the article would be increased with examples of the kind of industrial, medical, or military processes using radiation that produce the exposures levels and symptoms in the table of information.


 * I added the yearly federal limit for U.S. radiation workers. A radiation worker is generally someone whom the licensee (a person or organization licensed to work with radioactive materials ) has trained  to work around radiation. Simesa 21:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Radioactive sources : sterilisation, radiotherapy, radioisotope thermoelectric generator. Nuclear accidents : criticality accident using fissile material (for nuclear reactors, nuclear weapons, or some scientific research).  Nuclear warfare : main effect of neutron bomb, side effects of fallout (American test Castle Bravo, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Symptoms & Effects
The section of this article entitled 'Symptoms & Effects' does not actually detail the various symptoms of radiation exposure nor the effects of various levels of exposure. It devotes one sentence to talking about tumors, and then it goes into how radiation poisoning is a concern at Chernobyl and other sites.


 * Dear anonymous,
 * Tumors are not part of the acute radiation sickness. They are a stochastic effect of radiation occuring even for small doses, in other words an increased probability of having cancer (the higher the dose, the higher the probability).  On the contrary the symptoms described in the article are deterministic effects : they will take place at a certain dose (~ 2 Gy) and won't ever appear below a given threshold (~ 0.5 Gy).


 * Radiation sickness was a concern at Chernobyl with ~ 200 liquidators suffering from it. Effects on the population are stochastic long-term ones (e.g. leukemia, cancers) due to radioactive contamination (i.e. ingestion of isotopes) and/or chronic irradiation.  They are not the topic of the article.

I request this section actually detail the various symptoms and effects of radiation exposure.


 * The article deals with acute radiation sickness, not with radiation exposure as a whole. The old name radiation poisoning for the acute radiation syndrome is confusing maybe... Lachaume 23:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The article states that "Immediate disorientation and coma in seconds or minutes. Death occurs after a few hours by total collapse of nervous system." Then for the next amount of radiation it says that there are two people who received 100 Sv and 120 Sv of radiation and did not die for 49 and 36 hours respectively. I think that maybe the first statement is wrong, after all it needs a citation. I think it should be fixed, but I do not know what it should be replaced with. --BenWhitey 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a similar problem with the 10–50 Sv (1,000–5,000 REM) section which states 100% fatality after 7 days but cites someone having survived for 9 days. JWHPryor 10:38PM, April 10th 2008 (EST)

Metroid Prime Video Game
Hey, i noticed the Metroid Prime Video Game was not listed in the fictional effects part.

The fictional radioactive substance Phazon causes physical and mental changes in an organism's body.

I thought it could be included in the fictional effects part.

--Zouavman Le Zouave 10:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Phazon causes mutations and death, not radiation poisoning. It emits a type of radiation that does not exist in real life. No. atomicthumbs 16:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Prevention - Time Section Strange Example?
The subsection on "Time" under "Prevention" includes a very strange example to illuminate that the less time you're exposed to radiation, the better:

The longer that the humans are subjected to radiation the larger the dose will be. The advice in the nuclear war manual published in the USA was that '''if one needed to leave the shelter to dispose of human waste then this should be done as fast as possible. The suggested method is to collect it in a plastic bag, tie it with a small hole to allow gas to escape, then to quickly step out of the shelter, throw it and step back inside.'''

Is this a legitimate example, or is it really just someone trying to slip a bathroom joke into wikipedia? I suspect the latter. -- RxVUx6EB 12:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if it's not someone's idea of scatological humor, it's a lousy example. I would be in favor of removing this and replacing it. I'm sure

something more appropriate than fallout shelter instructions can be found. -- Rydra Wong 14:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Confused by units
Can someone please take a look at the Lake Karachay article. The source says that the radiation level is 600 roentgen/hour. I am totally confused by many, many different ways this can be convert. Can someone please give me the equivalent in grays, rads, sieverts, rems, and whatever other units are applicable? Raul654 04:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Name
"Strictly speaking the correct name for "radiation sickness" is acute radiation syndrome"

Why? Because a recognised authority has said so? If that's the case, can we cite them. Njál 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Treatment
As far as I know, despite the connotation of 'poisoning', there is no treatment for radiation poisoning (or the portions of a body radiated), am I correct? However, the link to Neumune is confusing, and doesn't explain what it does, or if it really is a treatment. PolarisSLBM 20:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe 'treatment' (and 'poisoning' for that matter) are really the wrong words to use. One can always 'treat' any condition but the extent to which this treatment does any good depends on the damage done to the body. As an example, one can behead a person and then 'treat' for this injury, however, no known treatment is going to save the patient in that case. Similarly, there is currently no 'treatment' that can 'undo' the radiation damage that has ocurred in the body. Maybe it should be somehow rephrased as, while you can certainly treat the symptoms of radiation poisoning, there is currently no cure (other than hopefully give the body a chance to repair itself)? Abiermans (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Gy gamma?
The explanation for the picture of the gentleman with severe radiation poisoning describes his dosage in "Gy gamma." Er... what does that mean? The article itself describes dosages in rem/sV, perhaps someone with more knowledge than I should rewrite the caption for the image into a unit actually used at some point in the article? 69.113.219.44 08:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Abbreviation for Gray, surely? Grays are SI-derived and rems are described as discouraged, so we should probably convert all the units to something consistent. There's far too many radiation units really, I agree it's confusing :-) Stonejag 10:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * also, "Acute radiation poisoning, 100% fatality after 7 days (LD 100/7). " is rather in~contradiction with the photo next to it of a man who took 30 days to die from a 10-2o Gy dose. 194.151.165.92 13:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Acute Poisoning
The article mentions orderly symptoms of acute poisoning, but doesn't say what these are. I don't know enough to add anything myself, excpet that it has to do with the frying of DNA; that's was causes death in a week or 2. But what causes the immediate fatality from radiation poisoning? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.126.206.189 (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

radioactive thallium?
Was the thallium used to kill Yuri Shchekochikhin really radioactive? I don't know about the case, but since a) radioactive thallium can only be produced in nuclear reactors, and b) stable thallium is relatively abundant and extraordinarily toxic, it seems unusual to bother using the radioactive type. KarlM 09:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks wrong to me too. I don't recall any news reports suggesting that radioactive thallium – I'm pretty sure that the hypotheses were reported as either thallium or some radioactive substance. If they had meant radioactive thallium, they would have said so. Also, I seem to remember that the symptoms of thallium poisoning are said to resemble certain types of radiation poisoning, which might explain the confusion. -- Steve Schonberger 10:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Tag 26
I'm crossposting this to both the Radiation poisoning and Tag 26 talk. The former page says the situation involves radiation, the latter some sort of biological agent. Which is correct? Edward Wakelin 04:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Authorship
Who actually wrote it? It seems well researched but there are no references at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.48.250.93 (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Symbol
Should some reference to the new radiation symbol be included? Makes sense to me, if only to highlight how seriously radiation poisoning is taken (and the problems of symbols not looking dangerous enough, though that's not really in the scope of this article...). I'm new and don't really understand the image markup, so if someone else could do it that'd be great :) Stonejag 10:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC) [edited this to remove the inline image!]

please clarify progression/stages of syndrome
I removed this statement from the prodrome article because it wasn't relevant there: "The prodromal stage of acute radiation syndrome (ARS) is the first of four stages."

And as I skim over this article, I see that the prodromal stage is not mentioned. Is it related to the walking ghost phase? Also, this article says there is a "characteristic set of symptoms that appear in an orderly fashion" -- can someone list the sequence of events? Or is this statement incorrect, since there are different symptoms varying by exposure level? Spazquest 05:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I was looking up this article to find out what the physical symptoms of radiation poisioning are, besides possible burns and eventual cancer. I was hoping that after the phrase "set of symptoms that appear in an orderly fashion" the article would list those symptoms. . . in an orderly fashion. . . but they're nowhere to be found. Then I went online and found this:

http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/noNetscape/radiation_effects_body.html

Can someone with a qualified opinion please clarify as to whether or not this information is true. And also add something to the article about it?

Xiare (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Xiare

Treatment
Under treatment, it says there is no possible treatments. I read some where that vitamin B6 and B12 were treatments, but I can't source it.

24.124.49.158 19:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the massive fiction section necessary?
This article has a rather long list of occurrences of radiation poisoning in fiction. Does it really improve the article? To me it seems a bit excessive. Thoughts? GhostPirate 06:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I spun it off. GhostPirate 02:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

History
This article could use a short section on history of research into radiation poisoning.

Death of Eben Byers in 1932 was probably a turning point. First recorded fatality from radiation exposure (as opposed to ingestion of radioactive substances) occurred in 1945. At the time, U.S. nukes were assembled by hand without much protection. I can only assume that scientists were unaware of dangers of radiation exposure.

Anyone up to the task? --Itinerant1 (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference 17
I noticed Ref. 17 was linked to a page that no longer existed. I was unable to find the original document on the LANL website, but found an equivalent document from the LANL journal. The page now links to this document.

24.150.122.49 (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)tjw - 9 Sept 2008

Acute Radiation Poisoning Symptoms
I believe I read that one of the initial symptoms of radiation poisoning by gamma rays is the sense of a metallic taste in the mouth of humans. Is this verifiable? The "Acute (short-term) vs chronic (long-term) effects" section desperately needs attention. Arrowhead2006 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Alcohol
In some old books (and newer fiction) there is mention of alcohol supposedly alleviating the effects of radiation poisoning. Are there any newer medical sources regarding this and if so, should it be mentioned in the article (myth/fact)? --79.217.216.81 (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Radium mine story unbelievable
I can't believe this story. Radium has a half-life of 1600 years. How on earth could VEINS OF RADIUM form in a cave? The symptoms aren't like radiation poisoning too, I've never heard of paralysis as a result of radiation exposure. This crap needs to be removed ASAP. "What may be the earliest confirmed cases of acute radiation poisoning occurred in 1879 in Barry County, Missouri, USA, where three men were fatally poisoned and a fourth permanently injured under mysterious circumstances. After chasing an animal they were hunting to the mouth of a cave, they discovered what the cave appeared to be several large veins of silver. They returned the next day to begin prospecting, but fled when they began to fall ill; by the time they had left, one of them was so ill that he was paralyzed and had to be carried to aid. In 1912, after the discovery of radium was announced, a local entrepreneur who had recalled the story investigated the cave to find that the metal was in fact radium, the first isolated veins of the metal ever found (previously, radium was only known from samples extracted from uranium-bearing pitchblende ore). The mine would be the first in the world to be excavated specifically for radium.[1][2]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.250.238.104 (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Anatoly Dyatlov
The article stated without any references that Anatoly Dyatlov died from heart failure due to his 390 rem exposure during the Chernobyl disaster. As written it is stated as a fact. It is impossible to directly link his 1995 heart failure to the 1986 exposure. This needs to be rewritten. I'll rewrite this unless someone objects. Abiermans (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Replace photo of Japanese woman on the first page!
The photo is misleading: the woman is not suffering from radiation sickness per se, but from thermal burns, as correctly mentioned in the annotation to the picture. I suggest to replace this photo with another, such as the photo of Alexandre Litvinenko on his deathbed - he was poisoned with radioactive Polonium and his condition is genuine radiation poisoning.

http:// www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-litvinenko-files-was-he-really-murdered-819534.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.250.238.104 (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC) \

Untitled
This entry needs to rewriten or removed. It is semi-literate and uses sourse like Mythbusters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.251.81 (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Units
shouldn't most of the data eg. the table of effects be in sieverts? a gray of gamma rays and a gray of neutrons are not equal despite having the same energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutoffyourjib (talk • contribs) 08:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The use of Gy is weird. Understandable if this were a Euro-centric article but useless to anyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.4.14 (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it is the use of NON-SI units that is weird. SI units are not "Eurocentric", they are THE units of radiation in virtually every country of the world, with the exception of the USA.  And even the US Health Physics Society, the main (US) professional association for those working in radiation protection, has a policy that SI units should be used exclusively.


 * As for the comment above - sieverts or grays? - it's a good question. It would certainly be true that Sieverts should be used if the outcome being discussed was cancer.  A gray of neutron exposure carries a different risk of cancer to that of a gray of gammas.  But I'm not sure that is the case for acute radiation syndrome, the topic here.

Baska436 (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Who sets ALI's?
Who sets standards and limits on radiation that is acceptable to workers? For example, in the health and safety world, there is ANSI that sets a lot of the standards, and OSHA who checks. There is also NIH. Those tend to be for general industry, especially chemicals and noise and such.... What is the equivalent for radioactive concerns?192.33.240.95 (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For the US, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sets dose limits for radiation protection. The NRC may be planning to update these dose limits, as they have not changed since 1991, and our understanding of risk has changed significantly since then. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1201.htmlAjnosek (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is considered the world's premier radiation protection body. It recommends radiation exposure limits which are adopted virtually unchanged in almost every country of the world (including USA).  The last major set of "Recommendations" was published in 2007, and did not recommend any significant changes to the limits first recommended in 1990. In fact they said "The overall estimate of deterministic effects remain fundamentally the same. The estimates of cancer risk attributable to radiation exposure have not changed greatly in the past 17 years, whereas the estimated risk of heritable effects is currently lower than before"

Baska436 (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Fractionation of dose
This section is a copy from the article Radioresistance. The comment "in the graph below" does not make sence in this article as the graph has not been moved with the copied text, and this alerts the reader the the plagiarism. Moojo315 (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Plagiarism? It is from another Wiki page? Removed said sentence. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This section is saying next to nothing. The first sentence is self evident and unrelated to what fractionation of dose is about. 142.1.225.115 (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Creeping dose
Suggest removing this term from the intro. It does not appear to be a scientific or even familiar term for the subject. -24.7.118.156 (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree and will look into it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviews
Here is a recent review on the topic.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Move and archive link
Why was this article moved from Radiation poisoning to Acute radiation syndrome? Other than two mentions in 2006 I found no discussion on this. Before the move Talk:Radiation poisoning was archived to Talk:Radiation poisoning/Archive 1 with this edit and this creation. I am placing a temporary Archive box at the top to help readers find and search that archive (search tends not to work for several hours after a new archive). However, we should either rename the archive to match the new name or move the page back, adjusting the archive templates in either case. -84user (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC) "- Why was this article moved from Radiation poisoning to Acute radiation syndrome?" So we don't want to scare our sheeps. We like them obedient more than educated.
 * Thanks for fixing the archives. With respect to the name. A recent review article refers to this condition as "acute radiation syndrome" . Thus have moved it here. Pubmed only finds one review article which contains radiation poisoning in the title. If we wish to create an article call Health effects of radiation that discusses the topic more broadly we could do so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio?
The phrase "pattern of bacterial susceptibility and nosocomial infections" rang an alarm bell. It seems on further searching to have been taken verbatim from this or this (1991) source. I don't have full access to the 1991 paper. It's possible there might be a PD-US-Government argument to allow verbatim use of the more recent text, but it still isn't encyclopedic language and in any case it should be attributed. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The person who contributed this content is Dr. Brooks it appears. Thus not really a copyvio. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Not everything which is copied from an external source is a copyright violation (though it's always good to cite cases where text is copied from elsewhere). In this case, the text comes from the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, which clearly outlines their copyright status on their Web site, indicating that, except where information is owned by a third party, their documents are "produced for the U.S. government by its officers and employees as part of their official duties and are not subject to U.S. copyright protection." -Miskaton (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dr Brooks is not one of D. Browne, J. F. Weiss, T. J. MacVittie and M. V. Pillai, the listed authors on the earlier paper to use those words, . Even if it is not a technical violation of copyright, it still is a failure to properly attribute a quotation. Further, the text is clearly written for the wrong audience. It should be rewritten in a more appropriate voice, not just cited. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reputable source?
I question the reputation of this source: K. Bhushan; G. Katyal (2002). Nuclear, biological and chemical warfare. New Delhi: APH Pub. Corp.. p. 122. ISBN 8176483125. I read two pages of the final, printed text... and they were wrought with obvious spelling errors. Moreover, it is not the original source of the information cited. There are no citations in the text, and the text isn't quite in tune on some generally accepted scientific findings. It was published by a relatively unknown Indian publishing house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.179.57 (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes agree and removed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Issue with the table
The table states that 90–100% have N/V with high dose exposure (ref Merk Manual). However the 2010 peer viewed journals as discussed in the sighs and symptoms section disagrees... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Causes
The causes section focuses on ways one can become exposed, but I'm curious about the mechanics of how acute and severe ionizing radiation poisons the body. Does it kill cells outright? Interfere with some cellular process? That's missing from the article, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.0.56 (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume this sort of knowledge would go under an "Effects" heading? Cause/effect? This knowledge is relevant to the scope of my interests as well. Where shall it begin? Raxicoricofallapatorius (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Would go under pathophysiology. Ie how the causal agent causes the pathology (signs and symptoms)... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is the major flaw in this article.  What are the biological processes by which radiation kills?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.73.166 (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Much could be added about deterministic effects. For instance, radiation destroys fast multiplying cells because cells in the middle mitosis and meiosis are more vulnerable.  This is why your immune system (white blood cells) and your GI-tract will be affected first.  However, the mechanisms for how radiation causes stochastic effects, such as latent cancer, are uncertain.Ajnosek (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a little more information on this point
"There is a simple guide for predicting survival/death in mammals, including humans, following the acute effects of inhaling radioactive particles.[30]" Awesome! What is it? The reference is to a book. That's good, I guess but without quoting the whole book, could we have a sentence or two or three saying what this simple guide is? You know, like if the animal has led skin its survival is better than if it has no skin or it if it is lean instead of having massive fat deposits or whatever. 75.48.23.70 (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Please could someone in the know make clear for the uninformed as myself, who has been trying to make sense of doses amd measurements, explain the relationship between the diferent jargon being used. Sv/h - berequels - msv - rem atc- how do they compare, how far does radiation travels etc. It is great to give a formula but perhaps some examples, e.g If 700,000,000 berequels of radiation are released, how far does that travel. I have been trying to work out the dangers for 5 months now and it is reminiscent of trying to compare vhs to betamax - incompatible. Please do a radiation for dummies. 188.220.186.57 (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reply: The author of this 'simple guide' retired in the 1990s but can still be contacted (and occasionally seen flying a kite!) - http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-wells/30/80b/840 The author was also an official UK delegate to the 1987 IAEA Advisory Group Meeting (in Paris) on the handling of the skin lesions which occured at Chernobyl. If you do a Google search for 'john hopewell beta irradiation skin' you will find appropriate publications which describe the biology of the predicted two wave response that was seen, epidermal, followed by a later dermal response due to blood vessel damage. Infection was a natural consequence. John Hopewell was the other official UK delegate. At the meeting Dr Barabanova (clinician) and Professor Osanov (physicist) described the nature of the radiation exposures at Chernobyl, the subsequent clinical responses and the treatment of some representative cases. Dr John Wells (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Skin response to Beta irradiation at Chernobyl
See immediately above. The article fails to get the message across that in a reactor accident, high energy beta irradiation can result in the loss of the full thickness of skin in exposed areas.Dr John Wells (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Review Oct 2011
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima
please address — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.46.53.156 (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The highest dose received by anyone from Fukushima was a worker who received 0.67 Sv.  That's too low and too slow to cause any symptoms of acute radiation syndrome. Please address elsewhere.--Yannick (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Eben Byers
Eben Byers died of cancer, not acute radiation syndrome, so I don't think he belongs in this article at all. It was called "radiation sickness" in newspapers of the day, but that was probably just from the low understanding that existed back then - I'm not sure that ARS had even been developed then. The radiation dose he received was spread out over years, which is much too slow to normally cause ARS. I suspect he may have suffered from chronic radiation syndrome, but that's original research. At the very least, there is no reliable source linking Eben Byers to ARS.

I had deleted Eben Byers from the article, but then someone put him back in. So now I've added my full explanation to the article, which is not ideal - debating in an article, and original research. But I don't have time to regularly patrol the article for re-addition to Eben Byers, so I'm not sure what else to do.--Yannick (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just realized that the solution is to add an invisible comment, so I implemented that.--Yannick (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wood River Junction 1964 Incident
Robert Peabody, an employee of United Nuclear Corp., is widely regarded as the only fatality in the history of U.S. nuclear industry. I would suggest he be included here. His case is written up in British Journal of Radiology (2005). Link below is to a May 2000 NY Times article about the incident. http://www.bazley.net/institute/archives/UNCdeath.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piece.of.eight (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Whilst he should be added, your wrong, Peabody wasn't the first fatality of Nuclear Industry in the US, Harry K. Dahglian and Louis Slotin were killed by Radiation accidents. --94.9.214.71 (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Description of Biology
The introductory paragraph includes the phrase, "The radiation causes cellular degradation due to destruction of cell walls and other key molecular structures within the body...." Are cell membranes, rather than cell walls, meant here? Assuming that the article primarily deals with the effects of radiation on mammalian systems, an error this early in the article makes me question the validity of the rest of the text. Jeneralist (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You can infer that THAT phrase is clueless (cell membranes is even wrong for other reasons). Will fix. S  B Harris 18:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Treatment/prevention
My research online shows the following materials are used to some extent or another for treatment of radiation sickness:


 * Potassium Iodide
 * Prussian Blue
 * G-CSF such as Filgrastim and Pegfilgrastim
 * Pentetic acid
 * Epoetin alfa
 * CBLB502
 * Cysteamine
 * Pentoxifylline
 * 5-Androstenediol
 * CLT-008
 * Ex-Rad
 * "EUK-400 series"
 * ciprofloxacin/rBPI21
 * Carbon nanotube based medicine

A section on treatment drugs like this, how they operate, and their status would be a worthwhile addition to this article. 184.166.2.234 (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Earliest documented case?
There is another, probably the earliest known case of radiation sickness reported in Rainer Karscht's book, Hitlers Bombe. According to Karscht, German nuclear scientist and member of the Uranverein, Dr. Walter Trinks was successfull in initiating a nuclear chain reaction in an experimental nuclear reactor at the laboratories of Heeresversuchsanstalt Kummersdorf near Berlin, in 1942. As Trinks was not using a moderator, the reactor reached critical mass and exploded within hours after he had left the site, destroying most of Trinks's lab. A janitor or guard came to inspect the ruins immediately after the explosion, and soon showed signs of fatigue and illness and had to be brought home. Soon after the explosion, the entire staff re-located to another site due to Allied air raids. After 1945, the Soviets erected a lone, remote ammunitions dump and declared the site a restricted military zone, and it took until 1957 that the site was returned to a livelier use as an East German military airport.

In 2005, Karscht interviewed the daughter of the janitor's widow, and she told him her father had died within days after the explosion of an illness which included symptoms of fatigue, hair loss, and severe bleeding. Combining these informations with soil samples taken at Kummersdorf that indicated high levels of radation only at the reported explosion site and that were clearly ruled out to be due to the Chernobyl desaster, Karscht came to the conclusion that this janitor in 1942 was probably the first victim of radiation sickness in history. --87.180.222.141 (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This redirect expects a "Walking Ghost phase" anchor to exist in the article, but it currently doesn't. It was presumably meant to refer to one of the high-dose classifications under Signs and symptoms. What should we do? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Acute radiation syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5hO7gbe9a?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iaea.org%2FPublications%2FMagazines%2FBulletin%2FBull413%2Farticle1.pdf to http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull413/article1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acute radiation syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217152337/http://www.bellona.org/articles/polonium to http://www.bellona.org/articles/polonium

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC

reference
this might be a good source to add(will do a lit. search for more)
 * --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

may become an article of interest due to more than 1000 NK troops
 * ................and more lit. as needed
 * 'pathophysiology' section 'prevention' section and 'cause' section need references, and 'diagnosis' needs to be expanded--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Crucial information missing
What is the actual effect on the human body? Is it bone marrow loss? This is very implicit. Why does radiation cause death of bone marrow cells? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.250.204 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

SL-1 Fatalities listed as ARS
Is it appropriate to list the SL-1 accident as causing 3 "ARS Fatalities?" Two of the deaths were immediate due to immense blunt force trauma from standing directly on top or right next to an exploding reactor, and the third died of his injuries a few hours later. They all received huge doses of radiation, but were killed by other means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.209.85 (talk • contribs)
 * You make a good point, IP. The table does specify that "many of these incidents involved additional fatalities from other causes, such as cancer, which are excluded from this table." I'd call blunt force trauma an "other cause." The SL-1 article points out that the radiation dosages received would have been lethal even if those three had survived their injuries, but since they didn't, I feel they shouldn't be listed as ARS deaths.
 * I'm open to other input, of course, but barring that I'll remove that entry from the table sometime in the next day or so (to give anyone who wants to a bit of time to respond). NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Biological timeline of radiation poisoning be merged into this article. I think that the content in the "Biological timeline of radiation poisoning" article can easily be explained in the context of "Acute radiation syndrome". They are primarily talking about the same thing. This article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Biological timeline of radiation poisoning will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. 81.132.7.122 (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --Iztwoz (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as well – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support; makes sense to me and will be a net improvement for the topic. NekoKatsun (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Signs and symptoms of radiation poisoning and we can add more details from the main article there. Would also be possible to merge. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably good to merge, as they are about the same thing, which is the effect of an acute dose of Ionizing radiation.

Need to cover this more from the viewpoint of committed dose which is only mentioned but not elaborated.

10:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * support with ARS as the main article

Asymptomatic period
In many cases there is an asymptomatic period. Not sure why "This may then be followed by a few hours or weeks with little symptoms" was removed? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The reason for revising this is that it was unclear about the chronology.

Currently it states Acute radiation syndrome (ARS), also known as radiation sickness, is a collection of health effects due to exposure to high amounts of ionizing radiation over a short period of time.[1] Within the first days symptoms may include nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite.[1] This may then be followed by a few hours or weeks with little symptoms.[1] After this, depending on the total dose of radiation, people may develop infections, bleeding, dehydration, and confusion, or there may be a period with few symptoms.[1] This is finally followed by either recovery or death.[1] The symptoms can begin within one hour and may last for several months.[2][4] So there is

1. an initial period of distress

2. A period with few symptoms, or does it mean small symptoms (little is used not few)

3. Depending on the dose there may or may not be further symptoms

4. There can be recovery or death.

The problem is between 2 and 3 above. So there could be a gap then symptoms again, or no symptoms at all, but without any further symptoms is it likely to lead to death.

This needs clarifying in a differently-worded description.

Suggest using the phrase a high dose instead of high amounts.

Regards Dougsim (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC) -

Still a confusing sequence there: suggest...

Acute radiation syndrome (ARS), also known as radiation sickness, is a collection of health effects due to exposure to high amounts of ionizing radiation over a short period of time.[1] The symptoms can begin within one hour and may last for several months. Within the first days symptoms may include nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite.[1] This may be followed by a few hours or weeks with few symptoms.[1] After this, depending on the total dose of radiation, people may develop infections, bleeding, dehydration, and confusion, or there may be a period with few symptoms. [1] This is finally followed by either recovery or death.[1]

Dougsim (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there a "Walking ghost" phase?
I have redirected Signs and symptoms of radiation poisoning to this article and want to put the debate to rest. The following was in the article:


 * While the irradiation, or process of being exposed to radiation, has resulted in bone marrow destruction and death of many rapidly multiplying cells, the surface effects do not become apparent until later. For example, irradiation kills the rapidly dividing cells of the gastrointestinal tract; however, diarrhea is not apparent until the cells begin to slough off, coming out in bloody excrement. Loss of this protective lining exposes the body to bacteria within the gut causing sepsis. Also, this causes an inability to absorb nutrition from food. This is the same with the rapidly proliferating cells of the immune system. Irradiation essentially halts white blood cell production by destroying bone marrow, however the remaining white blood cells within the body are still temporarily working until they are "used up". Anemia develops more slowly, because preexisting red blood cells have a longer life span than white blood cells and platelets.

So then begs the question.... is there a "Walking ghost" phase? If there is such a term then how and where should it be addressed? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

In popular culture
If there were to be an “In popular culture” section, please could it refer to the Chernobyl miniseries, explain what units were used by those measurement devices, and whether the representation of ARS was (approximately) correct? Thank you. JDAWiseman (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I feel a large part of this boils down to Radiophobia, and its impact in movies. Here are some trends in popular culture that I feel could be mentioned:


 * "Superman in Exile" (1954) - This is cited as the first mention of radiation poisoning where Superman becomes irradiated and must live away from other humans.
 * "The Day After" (1983) - The survivors of an atomic bombing mourn the dead and then become sick themselves.


 * These two events as well as the Chernobyl miniseries fall under the question: "Is Acute Radiation Syndrome a contagion?" In the TV mini series (which I have watched), there is clearly a fear of having those who are healthy being in contact with the ones behind the plastic curtains. In one scene a nurse scolds the wife of a dying fireman saying something along the lines of "he isn't the person you once knew", and "do you want to catch it too!?".We have to be careful to exclude movies which involve contact with nuclear waste such as the melting scene in Robocop. Only movies that specifically mention "Acute Radiation Syndrome", "Radiation sickness", or Radiation poisoning" will do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of the symptoms
This source breaks it down into 4 stages:

Prodrome, latent, manifest illness, and recovery. These occur to some degree in all degrees of radiation poisoning.

"Prodromal stage (N-V-D stage): The classic symptoms for this stage are nausea, vomiting, as well as anorexia and possibly diarrhea (depending on dose), which occur from minutes to days following exposure. The symptoms may last (episodically) for minutes up to several days. Latent stage: In this stage, the patient looks and feels generally healthy for a few hours or even up to a few weeks. Manifest illness stage: In this stage the symptoms depend on the specific syndrome (see Table 1) and last from hours up to several months. Recovery or death: Most patients who do not recover will die within several months of exposure. The recovery process lasts from several weeks up to two years."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes I saw that, the additional symptoms depend on a specific syndrome aside from the "classic" ones though. In my opinion summing up the four key points should involve the basics followed by a broad mention on the later ones. The manifest stage is talked about in detail under "Signs and symptoms". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Briefly mentioning the additional symptoms in the lead in my opinion is useful.
 * Restored "This later develops into additional symptoms such as infections, bleeding, dehydration, or confusion, depending on the total dose of radiation."
 * Rather than "This later develops into additional symptoms that depend on a specific syndrome". Syndromes depend on radiation does. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * These additional symptoms are also in the info-box and we have a whole "Dose effects" table which goes into additional symptoms not even mentioned in the lead. We have to give due weight to the sources publishing additional symptoms. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added a broad cycle of events as a hopeful compromise:
 * "Symptoms occur within the first few days followed by a few hours or weeks with little symptoms. This later develops into additional symptoms followed by either recovery or death."
 * Unless you can think of a way we can include all of the symptoms mentioned. I would be more convinced and feel better if a secondary source backed up the CDC on these restrictive symptoms. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The CDC is a perfectly reasonable source. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. We included the classic prodrome symptoms which are " The classic symptoms for this stage are nausea, vomiting, as well as anorexia and possibly diarrhea" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

"dangerous radioactive infrared light"
This has got to be an "intentional" joke, right? SkoreKeep (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Please explain User:SkoreKeep Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Never mind see it now :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You'd expect the one who fixed it to add a note, right? Oh, well.  It's fixed now.  SkoreKeep (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Picture showing normal heat burns, not radiation burns


I think this picture shows burns from the heat, not burns from the ionizing radiation. Everyone that got burns from the radiation also received 3rd degree burns from the heat, which would make seeing and differentiating the burns from the ionizing radiation difficult. Considering that she only shows what looks like burns that was apparently blocked by clothing, she was probably well outside the heavy radiation zone of the bomb. There are better pictures showing radiation burns from cyclotron accidents et.c. here on wikipedia.

I will replace the picture with something from radiation burn unless someone that has convincing arguments tell me that I am wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.128.172.177 (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The picture shows how the dye colors of clothing could affect the amount of heat absorbed from the flash (the so-called heat pulse) from the explosion. Dark colors absorbed more of the light energy and burned the skin, while lighter colors did not.  This pic has nothing to do with ionizing radiation, though of course light is a form of un-ionizing radiation. The caption is wrong in its implications. SkoreKeep (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I removed the picture. A better picture shows up if one goes to the "main article" on radiation burns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnissiahs hierophant (talk • contribs) 10:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Can really Gy and rad/Sv be converted into each other?
The article converts Gy into rads in a lot of places, but afaik there is a conversion factor depending on 1) what kind of radiation it is, and 2) which bodypart that is being radiated. Gy is essentially a "physical unit" while rad and Sv are "medical units". Or am I wrong? See here. Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The gray (SI MKS unit) is convertible into rads (CGS unit); sieverts into REMs. The two sorts of measurements are not directly compatible without making some assumptions, such as whole-body absorption and a selection of radiation types typical of fission products, perhaps.  Meters make this sort of bridging guess for the user so they can read out in sieverts rather than the less familiar grays.  I assume the manual tells the user about that; I don't own one. See Gray (unit), Sievert (unit). SkoreKeep (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)