Talk:Background radiation

Untitled
I'm not sure about the protocol for removing a "stub" designation, but just letting you know that I think this one should go, if someone who knows how to properly go about it is interested in doing so. Gene Nygaard 00:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you just take it out - but I don't think this article is ready. There's a sentence or two about the cosmic microwave background radiation (about which much could be said - its significance in cosmology, recent measurements of anisotropy, and so on) a sentence or two about ground-level background ionizing radiation, an unclear indication of the differences between these two usages, and a boilerplate linkfarm to anything physics-related.  I'll see if I can inflate the article somewhat.  --Andrew 03:10, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * However, the cosmic microwave background radiation has its own article. Maybe it would be a good idea to merge them, though I'd think not. In any case, lack of detail about that doesn't mean that this one isn't sufficiently complete to not be a stub.   This one shouldn't include an imperfect copy of that one; better just a summary discussion with link. Gene Nygaard 07:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That's what it has now. It also no longer claims to be a stub. Still needs work, mind you.  --Andrew 18:21, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Disputing the facts: after reading the section on background radiation, I question this articles facts. The document from which it draws the average background dose of radiation at 2.7mSv per year also suggests that uranium miners (at 1.8mSv) are actually exposed to LESS radiation than average, which is illogical. Readers need to bear in mind that this document was written by the UN who gets all their nuclear and radiation advice from the International Atomic Energy Agency, a pro-nulcear organisation.
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.125.217 (talk • contribs).


 * Moved new comment to bottom - also removed same comment from article space. Vsmith 02:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I did a bit of reorganization in the opening paragraph. There really seems to be a lot of good information in the opening paragraphs (and in the article as a whole!) but I think the very beginning suffered from one of the longest run-on sentences that I've ever seen, and some issues with the lists of information that were presented. I tried to patch these up a bit.

I was in the midst of writing some suggestions on this to the talk page, and then just decided to be bold and try my hand at it. I tried to preserve the opening paragraph's information content, but I broke the long linear list into some bullets for readability. I think from going through the paragraph a few times the original idea was to talk about the three main natural sources, and then talk about artificial ones -- so this is how I organized the bullets.

I also tweaked the list of artificial sources a little bit, mostly for parallel structure. I think there are still some remaining readability issues in the second paragraph -- it's a bit tricky since the list of artificial sources contains a sublist talking about "global radioactive contamination," but this sublist is delimited by commas in the same way as the main list is. Perhaps some judiciously applied semicolons, or a duplicate bullet list would be in order? Or maybe the detailed list could be done away with in the heading, and moved into the main body of the article? The opening could just not the three main sources of natural radiation and then say that there are also artificial sources. That would keep the opening terse but informative. For example,

Background radiation is the ionizing radiation emitted from a variety of natural and artificial radiation sources. Primary natural sources include those in the Earth, cosmic rays from space, and atmospheric sources. These typically dwarf artifical sources of radiation, which for the population of the industrialized world is mostly from X-ray imaging.

Another suggestion -- the article could really benefit from having a graphic that ties together all of the exposure numbers that are discussed. Perhaps a pie chart with various contributions? It would really give the reader something to focus on, and help them to synthesize the considerable amount of information in the article. Wesino 10:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Lamarsh and Baratta
Excellent source for background radiation information (pp 500). A breakdown should be added to the top of usual sources. From my radiation safety course at Purdue Nucl 205, a basic breakdown for the general population was as follows (Lamarsh has similar numbers)

Radiation Source        H(mRem/year)

Cosmic (at sea level)       27

Cosmogenic (C-14 T)         1

Terrestrial                 28

Body Burden (K-40)          39

Inhaled (Radon)            200

Medical/Dental X-rays       72

Radiopharmaceuticals        2

Nuclear Fallout             4

Nuclear Power             0.003

Total                     ~380

Just a basic list like that, and maybe a percentage category to put perspective on things. And maybe a gamma-ray breakdown map from pp 503 of L&B intro to nuclear engineering. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smeelink (talk • contribs) 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Having average yearly numbers for humans would certainly be informative; can anyone corroborate the above? --dinomite 13:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

suggest renaming the article to Background Ionizing Radiation
I suggest renaming the article Background Ionizing Radiation.

Then, Background Radiation can be a Disambiguation article, linking to:
 * Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and
 * Background Ionizing Radiation, and, perhaps,
 * the visible light from a nearby city and the highway, which is not wanted at the astronomical observations of far objects through the Earth atmosphere. dima 09:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In 2007, Dima wrote:
 * > I suggest renaming the article Background Ionizing Radiation. Then, Background Radiation can be a Disambiguation article...
 * I agree. Nei1 (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

“nuclear component”? in Human-caused background radiation
”The release of nuclear components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels in nuclear generating plants.” What is a “nuclear component”? I does not have access to the source so I cant check it but I think this needs to be clarified or removed. If a nuclear component is the same as a atomic nucleus it is of curse trivially true but very misleading. Or is it the number of unstable atomic nucleus that are compared or are it the activity? Or is it the number of fissile or fertile atomic nucleus?--Gr8xoz (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I found the source “nuclear component” refers to isotopes that could be extracted and used as fuel for breeder reactors. These isotopes has much lower radioactivity than used nuclear fuel so the statement is misleading and has nothing to do with background radiation.--Gr8xoz (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Measurement of Background Radiation
What is the proper equipment to purchase? Thanks. Nei1 (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I started to answer this and thought it would be better described in the article itself. I compiled a list of background radiation measurement Internet sites but am unsure of the external link policy for Physics pages. If the links belong in the bottom section or in a separate article, feel free to move them there. There are other sites but they would be construed as advertisement for commercial products. Bert490 (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merger with environmental radioactivity
The somewhat inferior article environmental radioactivity needs to be gutted for its small amount of new content (mostly some info on cosmogenic nuclides) and redirected to this article. What say you all? I've put a merge proposal on the other article. S B Harris 19:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation for 3.6 mSV/yr
In Background radiation (currently at start of second paragraph) a figure of 3.6 mSv/yr is quoted as a normal level and someone's asked for citation (understandably, given contrast with the intro's 2.4 mSv/yr figure). I've seen this figure also quoted on the MIT NSE site as typical for the USA; 3.6 figure should perhaps be so qualified here. The MIT NSE site usually does cite references, so you might find one there – although I couldn't immediately see the source for this number – or be able to persuade its authors to supply one. 84.215.6.188 (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Radiation inside the human body
This doesn't look right: "14C is present in the human body at a level of 3700 Bq with a biological half-life of 40 days.[16] There are about 1,200 beta particles per second produced by the decay of 14C. However, a 14C atom is in the genetic information of about half the cells, while potassium is not a component of DNA. The decay of a 14C atom inside DNA in one person happens about 50 times per second, changing a carbon atom to one of nitrogen.[17]"

If it is present at a level of 3700Bq, and only decays by beta decay, this should produce 3700 beta particles per second, if 1Bq is the amount of material where 1 atom decays per second. The citation and conversion for the 3700bq figure looks ok, but the citation shown for the 1200 beta particles per second from 14C decay (of which 50 are in DNA) links to a Wikipedia article where carbon 14 is not mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.181.252 (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC) I LOVE YOU ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.101.27 (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Fukoshima
The mentioning of 1000mSv/hr in Fukoshima is misleading. It is not measured in the field but on one certain spot (exhaust contamination filter)  in the powerplant. Further, is the halftime of the emission of importance. The first days of the accident Jodium and radioactive Xenon are important, after some months these elements are lost. Background radiation implies a certain continuity, one- off doses of accidents that disappear, do not contribute- Only RA cesium and strontium contribute from the reactor accident, contribute to the background radiation the coming time. The contimination in Japan around Fukoshima for Cs and Sr is moderate and is under control. Even with LNT, as calculation of mortality base, the Anti-nuclear campaigner Jacobson could not prognosticate more than 130 fallacies for Japan, in total because, of premature cancers in the future. Some researchers, on radiation, like Prof. Wade Allison, find the protection measures for entry in the radiation exclusion zone too harsh. Even living there would not increase cancer risk that much, as radiation levels beneath the 20 mSv/yr or 50 mSv, one time dose, threshold do not promote cancer. http://www.radiationandreason.com/ http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/fukushima.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renevers (talk • contribs) 02:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Natural Background Radiation - Ramsar
I note that this paragraph mentions Ramsar as an example of a very high natural background radiation count, and then goes on to say "Radiation hormesis has not been observed, and data from Ramsar does not provide justification to relax existing regulatory dose limits." This suggests that the inhabitants of Ramsar are in danger of radiation damage, and that findings in Ramsar justify the current dose rate advice.

If you look at the paper quoted in support of this statement you find that the relevant sections read:

" Our preliminary studies seem to indicate the presence of adaptive response in the cells of some Ramsar inhabitants, but we do not claim to have seen hormetic effects in any of those studied." and "Given the apparent lack of effects among observed populations of these high dose rate areas, the data suggest that current dose limits may be overly conservative. However, the available data do not yet seem sufficient to cause national and international advisory bodies to change their current conservative radiation protection measures: for this to happen more definitive data are needed."

In other words, though hormesis was not CLAIMED, the data showed that cells were adapting to the radiation levels, and the scientists considered that though their data provided some evidence for increasing current acceptable dose rates, more work was needed before such a major change was considered. So the paper quoted actually does provide some justification for considering current acceptable rates to be set too low, though the scientists concerned felt that this was not YET sufficient justification. What the paper says is in startling contrast to the Wiki entry, which selectively quotes the paper to make it appear as if there had been no adaptation at all, and that there was no evidence that the current dose rates are set conservatively low.

I know that this is an activist topic - but this kind of distortion is the reason that the Wiki is, more and more, being held in low regard in teaching and academic circles. It should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.119.75 (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the wiki entry is lying by omission, quoting just the parts in favor of the NLT idea, but not the findings that suggest otherwise. Indeed there was no evidence for hormesis (a good effect) but neither was the predicted LNT effect seen, either. So that's one strike against hormesis and one against LNT in this study. Both should be mentioned. S  B Harris 04:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're misusing a single primary source to try to contradict BEIR VII and ICRP 103, which are at least secondary. You're violating WP:PSTS. If you want a technical answer, cellular radioadaptive response is well known and does not disprove LNT; it is not the same thing as hormesis. With a sample size of 2000 people at these dose levels, it will take about 100 years of follow-up studies to obtain statistically significant data. But I will not engage further in this technical argument - WP:PSTS is sufficient to revert your change.--Yannick (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS is also relevant where we're discussing health effects.--Yannick (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here, you can chew on this, which has some good information that could be added to the article. It looks like the 640 mSv figure is much too high. But the upshot is "Some authors have interpreted the absence of an observed excess of cancers as support for a protective effect of radiation. However, as discussed here, null findings are generally not informative. ... The only real conclusive evidence is that indoor radon studies indicate an elevation of lung cancer risk even for levels of exposure as low as 200 Bq/m3." So yes, the inhabitants of Ramsar are in danger from radon.--Yannick (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, so cite those other sources. In the meantime, the way it's written is misleading given no support for LNT was found, and although the evidence is not by itself strong enough to overthrow regulations, the way it's written implies that the results support the regulations. Robotbeat (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Background dose rate examples - Medical is not background
How is "medical" in this table classed as a source of background radiation? It is not incidental or ubiquitous, and is applied for a particular purpose. Suggest that it is removed Dougsim (talk)

I think it should be categorized as background if it is for regular diagnostic imaging, but not if it is a treatment. Dental imaging can be considered ubiquitous in some societies. Bert490 (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Background radiation. 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/20070205103749/http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html to http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

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) 21:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Background radiation. 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/20070623020422/http://www.taishitsu.or.jp/radiation/index-e.html to http://www.taishitsu.or.jp/radiation/index-e.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201222225/http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/welling.html to http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/welling.html

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) 13:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Potassium-40 also produces gamma rays
The Food and water section only mentions beta particles from K-40 in food - but Potassium-40 says about 11% of decays produce 1.46 MeV gamma rays. What's the relative damage to say mammals ? Rod57 (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Artificial dose
The AVERAGE medical dose is given as 3.0 for the United States, but there's no way that's correct. The average person does not receive a CT scan every two years (as a CT scan delivers around 7.0 mS of radiation). An X-ray produces a mere 0.1, and no average American is receiving 30 X-rays a year, either. Unless there are some extreme outliers receiving numerous CT scans a year, the numbers just don't add up. What's more, the source given doesn't load, anyway. The source given is: http://www.ncrppublications.org/Reports/160 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.40.87 (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Change the name of the background table, and add a % column
Two suggestions for the "Background dose radiation examples" table

1) The table shows "examples" in columns 3 & 4 (US & Japan) but column 2, World, doesn't seem to fit as an "example". The table's description: "Background radiation varies with location and time, and the following table gives examples". Perhaps the section title could be "Background global dose rates and examples".

2) Consider adding a % column after the World column. This should not be done if there are significant known sources not identified in the table's rows, because then the reader could easily draw the wrong inference, for example, that radon comprises about 40% of all background radiation, whereas that would be a reasonable conclusion only if the rows somewhat comprehensively represented significant sources. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Atmospheric C14 graph
The graph reaches to 2000 year. What's later. The partial graph calls me to a conspiration theory of conspiring modern radiation level. --VictorPorton (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)