Talk:Anatoli Bugorski

Irregularity
Wired article reads, "though we don't know of anyone else who has been exposed to radiation in the form of a proton beam moving at about the speed of sound" and this article says it was speed of light. I'm guessing Wired messed up on this one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.231.6.85 (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Protons can't move at the speed of light. 207.47.179.157 (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter can move at the speed of light, but this article says "near the speed of light", which is probably correct. cojoco (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Protons can -not- travel at the Speed of Light. They can be induced to approach the Speed of Light asymptotically without never reaching it.
 * Protons moving at the speed of sound wouldn't bother you at all. Particle accelerators accelerate things to the order of .999 times the speed of light, with the bigger/better ones giving you more 9's.  "Near the speed of light" is obviously correct here.  dougmc (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Pix...
...or it didn't happen. 24.218.218.9 10:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Original? Russian article including pictures http://www.gd-info.km.ru/science/iz23j98.htm (cannot read Russian so assuming from the photos, someone confirm.)

This page seems to copy entire sentences from the Wired article.

Half the article is copied word by word from the Wired article....zzzzzzzzzzzzzz


 * Probably the initial version had some sentences from the Wired article. I don't see any copied sentences in the current version. utcursch | talk 10:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Marriage
Please make the following change:

"Bugroski is married to Faith Nikolaevne, and they ..."

should be

"Bugroski is married to Vera Nikolaevna, and they ..."

Russian word "vera" can be translated as "faith", but in this case "Vera" (Вера, common women's name in Russia - see, for instance, Wikipedia entry on Vera Zasulich) is the first name and shouldn't be translated. "Nikolaevne" is a conjugated variant of "Nikolaevna" (Николаевна), Russian patronymic (second) name; in English translation, non-conjugated variant should be used.

Thanks, Valery valery (wants_no_spam_at) sagitov.com


 * Done. Thanks for the suggestion. utcursch | talk 10:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please also change "Nikolaevne" to "Nikolaevna" Valery. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.114.69.76 (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Done. utcursch | talk 05:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsensical links
The phrase "accelerator Syncrotron U-70" is poorly linked.

"accelerator" links to Linear particle accelerator. "Syncrotron" links to the Syncrotron article, which is NOT a linear particle accelerator. "U-70" links to a U-boat (submarine) article, which has nothing to do at all with this.

This article also incorrectly calls the syncrotron a linear accelerator later in the piece.

0_0
A long time ago I wrote this article (in its first form), and it remained the same for months. Then I submitted it to Reddit expecting it to get little or no upvotes. Suprise, it got to Number 2 with 760 points! Then somebody else submitted it to Digg, and so far it has 1780 diggs and is Number 2 in "All Topics". Maybe Slashdot or Fark is coming next? Who knows! All I know is that I've made this guy famous. atomicthumbs 18:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, somebody already submitted it to Fark. Although it's not on the front page. You have tio be a TotalFark subscriber to see it. Him (and to a much lesser extent I) are internet celebrities! atomicthumbs 18:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Now we have to protect this rather unusual page. Perhaps all this popularity will prompt someone to investigate further into these events.--71.119.136.112 (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect radiation measurement
The radiation dose quoted should be in Gray, or more correctly, Sievert. The rad (radiation absorbed dose) is an archaic measurement discouraged by the SI group. The Sievert is the dose equivalent in living tissue - it's discussed on Wikipedia, but I need to check a reference book to make sure the QF and N-values are correct being recalulating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.104.187.185 (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Shouldn't we convert 300,000 rad to 3000 gray? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.83.105.174 (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Done. Thanks for the suggestion. utcursch | talk 10:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the 200,000 Gray should be 2,000 Gray for the same reason. 200,000 Rad = 2,000 Gray.  I made this change.  Skalchemist 19:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The figures from the wired article, about the beam intensity, make no sense in rad or in gray. First, the intensity in an energy unit could not increase, and second, Gray/rad/Sievert are units of absorbed dose. Absent further information, the sentence could change to say:

The radiation dose he received from the beam was about 2,000 gray. [1]

Thomasonline (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos
Look this page and the photos http://www.gd-info.km.ru/view/view_print.asp?id=%7B0880ED18-9ED9-447B-9D6C-42B1FE38EEE0%7D ;)

Beam details
It would be nice if the proton's energy (perhaps in MeV or GeV) and its intensity is quoted, if it is possible.

FourBlades 11:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Especially since a measurement like "nearly at the speed of light" contains absolutely no information. Every particle in an accelerator gets near the speed of light, but the nearer it gets the more energy you need to accelerate it further. So the information "with an energy of ... GeV per particle" is much more significant than "with a speed of 99.99999(insert some 9s)% of light". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.85.114 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The U-70 accelerator operated at the eponymous 70 GeV (max). Finding the operational energy at the time of the alleged accident may prove harder. Infojunkie23 (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Radiation dose
I do not understand the sentence that states The beam measured about 2000 gray when it entered Bugorski's skull, and about 3000 gray when it exited after colliding with the inside of his head. Grays are units of radiation dose (Joules/sec) - they are not units of a linac beam. For example, you could say that if his head remained in the beam for X seconds he would absorb a dose of N grays. In addition, how can the dose (grays) of the beam increase after exiting his head. Perhaps the writer was referring to the liminosity of the beam, which increased due to particle production inside the brain/skull tissue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PloniAlmoni (talk • contribs) 09:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the reference to "gray" as they are, as you suggest, entirely inappropriate units of measurement, and there's no clear sense of what was intended to be communicated by those figures in the Wired article from which it was lifted verbatim. Also please note that the links to all other sources are dead. The reliability of the information in this article should definitely be regarded as questionable. Bobathon (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think some clarification of the energy involved would be useful. Someone like me might assume that the 76 GeV figure is the total energy of the beam (that's what this article seems to be saying, for example). It seems that, in fact, that was the energy of each proton. 10^-8 J does not seem like it should be lethal, but 20,000 J of radiation does sound like it would be. It probably increased from 2k to 3k grays because of a change in velocity from scattering? Similar to how neutrons also have a peak in damage done to tissue at a specific velocity, though it might be just damage per energy. 23.121.191.18 (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Proton beam in air?
I don't understand how this could have happened. How was the proton beam passing through air? To create the beam in the first place, you need a pretty good vacuum, and my understanding is that if the beam was badly aimed, so it was incident on the wall of the vacuum chamber, the vast majority would get absorbed, and the remainder would be scattered so it wouldn't be a beam anymore. Does anyone know how this happened? Maybe if it was very high energy protons it could get through the vacuum vessel into air. Does anyone know the energy (MeV, GeV...)? —Keenan Pepper 23:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This should be at least mentioned in the article as a potential criticism. However it does seem like it might be feasible.
 * "A hadron beam impacting on material interacts with the target particles and generates a particle shower, depositing energy in the material. Energy deposition leads to temperature rise and hence possibly to damage. The transverse extent of the shower increases with the penetration depth." From MATERIAL DAMAGE TEST WITH 450 GeV LHC-TYPE BEAM


 * I'm sure there's something further on consequences of escaped beams in the book The God Particle, if someone has a copy to hand for a full reference... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infojunkie23 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

On an outer space adventure
They were hit by cosmic rays —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.24.53 (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if someone that close to the Earth was hit by cosmic rays, we would all be dead due to the depletion of the Ozone layer.--71.119.136.112 (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, both these comments are nonsense. Cosmic rays hit us all the time; the only reason they don't do any damage is that the luminosity (number of particles) is so low. You do get a significantly larger dose of cosmic radiation every time you fly on a plane, though. —Keenan Pepper 03:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

ناتولی بوگروسکی: در 13 جولای 1978 این دانشمند روسی در قدرتمند ترین دستگاه شتابدهنده ذره ای شوروی سابق، دچار حادثه ای کوچک شد. به دلیل نقص در تجهیزات ایمنی یک پرتو پروتونی با سر وی برخورد کرد و وی نوری درخشانتر از هزاران خورشید را در برابر چشمانش مشاهده کرد. در حالی که پزشکان از وی قطع امید کرده بودند، وی به شکلی عجیب زنده ماند و جدا از حمله های گاه و بی گاهی که به او دست می دهد، گنجایش ذهنی وی دچار آسیب دیدگی نشد. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.164.66.20 (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Translation, anyone? —Keenan Pepper 17:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Google translate of the above, from Persian: Vectro (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Natvly Bvgrvsky: 13 July 1978 the Russian scientist, the most powerful particle accelerator machine Soviet experience was a small incident. Due to defects in safety equipment with a proton beam struck his head and his light is brighter than the sun in front of thousands of eyes to see. While doctors had lost hope of her, she somehow survived a strange and isolated attacks, and sometimes no Sometimes that he loses his mental capacity suffered no injury.

Aging process slowed
I have read in several places, including the Wired article, that the side of his face that was struck does not age, and the Wikipedia entry does not make a mention of that. Would this be due to the fact that his face is paralyzed, or could it be something else causing this phenomenon, or could it be entirely hearsay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.198.151.166 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Worth putting a picture of his beam injury
Not sure if that would follow Wikipedia's guidelines seeing as an injury out of star wars might be seen as abit too gruesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.23.15 (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that this ever happened?
Subject pretty much sums it up. I checked at least a dozen of articles and they all link back to that wired article.

As somebody with a background in particle physics the wired article sounds extremely implausible to say at least.

Particle beams are subject to extreme scattering in ambient air. If he really managed to somehow open the accelerator vacuum system, thus pressurising the accelerator vessel, and every single safety system really failed, it would still be impossible for every accelerator system presently known to form a proton beam in a non-evacuated accelerator vessel. It really is simply physically impossible. Something smells pretty fishy with this story ...

Theuberger (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You didn't bother to read Proton therapy, did you?! They do it all the time... More in-depth information (complete with very nice photos of the equipment - mmmh, accelerator pr#n :-) e.g. here:
 * https://www.rptc.de/en/proton-therapy/proton-radiation-technology.html
 * Just the 250 MeV available there give a max penetration depth of 38 cm in tissue (therefore safely to assume many times that in air, and much, much more at 70 GeV.) The last approx. half meter towards the patient is air, after the beam has left the vacuum system through a kapton plastic window in the so-called "nozzle".


 * It would of course not have been possible in a "collider" type installation which has no provisions for the beam to leave the vacuum vessel, but U-70 (synchrotron) gives: "protons are accelerated to the maximum energy of 76 GeV, and then (...) extracted from the ring to the secondary beams in the experimental halls", implying the existence of Beamlines leading to experimental setups, where similar windows would exist for experiments that are not taking place in vacuum. There, such an incident sounds entirely plausible to me.


 * Then again, the wording from the Masha Gessen article ("Bugorski stuck his head in the space through which the beam passes on its way from one part of the accelerator tube to the next") is very much misleading. I strongly doubt there would be multiple segments of evacuated accelerator tubing with such end windows, separated by air gaps.


 * Arno, RSO from Germany --87.139.7.40 (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've seen setups like that, such as in the SPS north area beamlines. The beam (high energy pions and muons) goes along a line, comes into air through by passing through a vacuum window, goes through your experiment, and goes back into another evacuated tube. Rinse and repeat 1-2 times more for different experimental stations along the same beamline. So I guess it's possible in this case of setup, if the people running it had (1) a primary beam and (2) no respect for patrol routines / interlock systems / etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyrsjo (talk • contribs) 20:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bugorski.png