Talk:Radioactive contamination

Firefox
just to note that this article renders badly in the firefox browser —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.118.248 (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Image
I changed the main image from Image:Rad-warning.png to Image:Correct-radiation-warning.png, because the latter's dimensions are more closely based on official specifications (and the former was upside down, as well). I don't think anyone will mind, obviously it's no slant against whoever did the first one, just a correction (since I happened to have made a "correct" version a few years ago and still had the file on my computer). --Fastfission 01:25, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Isn't there a new symbol for radioactivity now? We should keep the old one too, but the new one shows the radioactive-symbol with rays comming out of it and a stick-person running away from it (I also think there is a scull there...). --Koppe 11:50, 26 April 2007 (CET)

Extensive editing
I rewrote most of this entry to better define radioactive contamination. Contrary to the original tone of the article, not all radioactive contamination is deadly. Extensive contamination certainly can be, and there are links to such events at the bottom of the page. --Ike 21:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

REmoved from page
I removed this from page because I dont think it does anything to explain the concept of contamination and basically its irrelevant to the article.

''Many radioactive isotopes are produced artificially, either for their specific properties (such as medical radioisotopes) or as a byproduct (such as fission products). Some radioisotopes exist in nature, including uranium, thorium, and some isotopes of potassium and carbon. Radioisotopes share the property of spontaneous transformation, where an atom of a given element will transform into a different element, emitting radiation in the process.''

--Light current 03:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The pre-1964 athmosphere was really terrible.
During the 1960s (before and shortly after the Test Ban Treaty) there was tremendous radiactivity in the air, especially in the stratosphere. Here is something a retired hungarian fighter pilot told us during an aviation enthusiast club:

1., They flew MiG-21F-13 twice supersonic light jetighters from 1962. At this time military doctrine was high altitude aerial warfare and most flight were made between 15 to 20 kilometer altitude.

2., Pilots' anti-G garments and breathing hoses began materially deteriorating after six months use, due to intense rays from the radioactive dust that entered the cockpit via the air pressurizing system. Especially rubber tissue fell apart quickly. This was never seen with lower altitiude transsonic planes like the MiG-17.

3., Fighter pilots' flight time had to be limited to 60 hours a year due to dangers of high dosage, but sometimes they flew 80 due to crew shortage. Lady flight doctors were eventually replaced with male doctors, after they refused to sign pilot's flight clearance sheets over radiation concerns. A lot of pilots suffered radiation related long-term ill health. (Early fighter jets also had "leaky" radars that sent a measurable fraction of the emitted radio energy backwards, so pilots in the cockpit were like a chicken in the microwave oven. It hurt the guys' balls especially.)

4., Nowadays fighter pilots fly about 160-180 hrs a year in the richer countries, but supersonic and above 11 kilometers high flights are very rare in modern militaries, they do terrain following flights nowadays and the radation danger is thus greatly limited. The air is also cleaner due to end of worldwide bomb testing.

5., Apparently the american SST, anglo-french and soviet Tu-144 plans for supersonic airliners were among the major reasons for test ban treaty. It would be impossible for the Concorde to fly 18km high in an open-air nuke testing world, the passangers would be irradiated with a dose several times of a chest X-ray due to stratospheric radioactive dust. Even today, they have to descend to 11km and fly subsonic when the solar flare alert rings. 195.70.32.136 11:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * can anybody explain the mechanics of this? i know there is radiation coming from space, but what is he exactly talking about ? dust from atom bomb tests ? why is it only in the upper parts of the athmosphere ? shouldn't dust fall down again ? aren't these cockpit's 100% airtight ??? when i sit on a plane isn't that all airtight and pressurized and oxygen-masks-from-above? i seem to have missed a few things. please explain.--83.189.62.136 14:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Question
Could anyone tell me whether there are scientific models to decontaminate environment. Considering a contaminated site of nuclear testing - is there a way to minimize the natural decay time so that the site is useable again? - Oliver
 * Decay time cannot be altered - it is a feature of the atom itself. Decontamination usually involves scrapping off the contaminated soil and burying it somewhere else - or just adding a new layer on top of the old contaminated one. Rmhermen 19:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Stupid Question
There is this belief (in effect based on Magical thinking's law of contagion) that material that is exposed to radioactivity becomes radioactive itself. Should this be mentioned in some way or is this more for snopes? A friend of mine talked about this, and i wanted to show him wrong, went to wikipedia, and there was nothing there. in the end i convinced him, that the absence of a mentioning strengthens my position. but it would have been better to see it here. would it ?--83.189.62.136 14:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

answer #1

 * It is possible, under certain circumstances; some types of high-energy ionizing radiation can definitely cause a nuclear reaction which
 * cause the irradiated object to become (usually weakly) radioactive. The worst, of course, occurs when the nuclear reaction generates a
 * new isotope which is highly radioactive on its own accord.


 * This is probably most common with proton, neutron, or alpha radiation, since they contain hadrons and therefore are more likely to
 * trigger a nuclear reaction. Beta (electron) or X-ray/gamma radiation would be less likely to do so.  Neutrons are particularly dangerous
 * in this respect, since they do not have to overcome the Coulomb barrier. See Neutron activation.
 * Hpa (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

answer #2

 * Review some of the Criticality accident items, especially the SL-1. If the radiation is intense enough, non-radioactive
 * metals can be transformed into radioactive forms by neutron bombardment. Gemstone irradiation also has details

Watchpup (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Periodic Table
The Periodic table that shows the reactivity of elements overlaps with the words above it slightly. The bottom of the letters like p and g are cut off. It might only be with Windows Explorer. I don't really know how to change it so will someone else please do it. 82.3.186.129 (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't see the effect you're describing in Chrome or IE. Mishlai (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm noticing something else about the Periodic Table. The color legend has 6 colors and the list below shows 6 levels, but there are in actuality 8 colors used on the Table. Is this intentional? If so, why? Are those colors supposed to mean something else entirely that isn't dealt with in this article?Theroguex (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So how much of a threat would Pa-231 represent?
Just wanted to ask. 23191Pa (chat me, but mind the alphas!) 03:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Dispute of the definition
As a certified NRRPT, I have to dispute the definition provided. My thoughts are twofold, when would radioactive contamination be desirable? We define it as unintended or undesired... so when would it be desired? Further this definition implies that if the contamination was intended/desired that it would not meet the definition of radioactive contamination. Another question would be if a radioactive source was unintentionally left at a restaurant, it would obviously be undesired, so would it be "radioactive contamination?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthayes3741 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused - the definition provided defines radioactive contamination as unintended or undesired. For the question regarding a source left at a restaurant - it could be called radioactive contamination, but if it is a sealed source, it probably wouldn't be.  SCStrikwerda (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Exposure versus contamination
This article is currently incorrect in regards to the depiction of radioactive exposure = radioactive contamination. As per this article - http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/MedEd/radiation/Radaccident/expvscon.html, they are NOT the same. 24.115.224.246 (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead section has been re-written to make this point. Dougsim (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Wordy para in lead section & talk page guidelines
The last paragraph in the lead section is too much. Not suitable for a lead section in this article. The first two sentences could stay but the rest should be moved to the relevant article Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster if not already available there.

Also, there is a lot of irrelevant discussion on this talk page. Please be aware of talk page guidelines wp:talk "provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 03:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources of nuclear or radioactive hazard
Answer 2409:4063:6E02:DE15:BD8E:6F9C:E1C:5B22 (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)