Searching \ for 'OTP erase, B/W Monitor X rays' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=otp+erase+monitor
Search entire site for: 'OTP erase, B/W Monitor X rays'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'OTP erase, B/W Monitor X rays'
1997\08\14@141649 by Mike

flavicon
face
At 08:07 AM 8/14/97 -0500, you wrote:

>  I would guess that a source that gave off
>gamma's at about the same energy level as the UV light would work fine.

Eh ? You can't have a gamma anywhere near the energy of UV as far as I
know its impossible. The gamma is higher frequency electromagnetic
radiation than UV and would likely go straight through the cell with
out ionising it - ie dislodging the charge.

Remember energy level and frequency are not separable when it comes
to electromagnetic radiation - be careful - there is no safe dose
of Gamma OR UV for that matter - but you can sit in front of a bar
heater for as long as you like ;)

>Wonder what kind of shielding the package adds?

At Gamma frequencies - NONE - ZERO - ZILTCH.

>Probably the best method would to be to etch a hole in the package and use
>a light.

Why not paste it to the face of a really old Black and White monitor,
leave the monitor brightness turned up to maximum (after you've tweaked
the EHT up about 20% - BEFORE it ARCS) and leave them there for about
3 days and check what percentage of bits were cleared - ie do a before
and after statistical test - OH and don't forget to turn off the
deflection coils - so you'd better paste the chips to where the beam
center would be.

Make sure you are far away from the jigged up monitor - ie put it
in the garden shed. If the kittens have two heads or start talking to
congress or making phone calls then don't blame me but send me a 20%
commission when you sell them to the National Enquirer ;)

Rgds

Mike
Perth, Western Australia

1997\08\14@150421 by Norm Cramer

flavicon
face
At 02:16 PM 8/14/97 -0400, you wrote:
>At 08:07 AM 8/14/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>  I would guess that a source that gave off
>>gamma's at about the same energy level as the UV light would work fine.
>
>Eh ? You can't have a gamma anywhere near the energy of UV as far as I
>know its impossible.

That may be true I havent looked it up in my old Nuclear Physics books.

>The gamma is higher frequency electromagnetic
>radiation than UV and would likely go straight through the cell with
>out ionising it - ie dislodging the charge.

There is allways a probability of interaction depending on the matter that
the gamma passes through (i.e. lead has a higher probability than
aluminum).  If this were not true, why would we need shielding arround
nuclear reactors for gamma radiation?  Also how could we measure the
levels?  To get the required flux to dislodge the charge, you would need to
increase the incident flux (higher dose), or increase the time (higher dose).

>
>Remember energy level and frequency are not separable when it comes
>to electromagnetic radiation

Gammas are not electromagnetic in the normal fasion.  There is a wide
energy band of gammas that differ in energy (and frequency) depending on
the isotope that generated them.

>- be careful - there is no safe dose
>of Gamma OR UV for that matter

Sure there is according to the US 10CFR20 regulations from DOE.  Dose is
something like 5 REM (radiation equivalent to man) per year for adults over
18 years of age (the formula is a little more complex).  BTW that is above
background, you allready get some exposure just from naturally occuring
radioactive decay, and from outerspace.

>- but you can sit in front of a bar
>heater for as long as you like ;)
>

I agree wholeheartely!

>>Wonder what kind of shielding the package adds?
>
>At Gamma frequencies - NONE - ZERO - ZILTCH.
>

Well, everything does a little.  Polyethelye does offer some sheilding.  I
belive ceramic IC packages offer more than plastic packages (that's why we
uses them in radiation hardened products).

Enough nuclear physics, lets get back to PIC's.

Norm

1997\08\14@161252 by Mike

flavicon
face
At 02:03 PM 8/14/97 -0500, you wrote:

>There is allways a probability of interaction depending on the matter that
>the gamma passes through (i.e. lead has a higher probability than
>aluminum).

The higher the frequency the lower the level of interaction, the memory
cell in EPROMS is *designed* to be erased by a particular band of UV,
lower frequencies have less effect and so do higher frequencies - the
trick with X-rays is a frequency that is higher than UV such that it
wll penetrate the packaging but low enough to STILL have some value
in erasing the cell, this will taper off radically as frequency goes up.

Lead (like most things) are less effective the higher frequency
you go. For very high frequency gamma rays (ie high energy) you need
progressively thicker lead (or other dense material) for shielding,
like spent U238 (just make sure there are no neutron sources ;-)

>Gammas are not electromagnetic in the normal fasion.

Rubbish - from low frequency RF, through visible light, UV, Xray, Gamma
its ALL electromagnetic radiation - there is no distinction.

 There is a wide
>energy band of gammas that differ in energy (and frequency) depending on
>the isotope that generated them.

They differ in frequency hence they differ in energy, if you are talking
about beta decay then thats different - thats an electron which can
be expelled with differing energies - but its not EM.

>>- be careful - there is no safe dose
>>of Gamma OR UV for that matter
>
>Sure there is according to the US 10CFR20 regulations from DOE.

I reject the regulation - it is only a reference for convenience, there
is NO safe DOSE of radiation.

>  Dose is
>something like 5 REM (radiation equivalent to man) per year for adults over
>18 years of age (the formula is a little more complex).  BTW that is above
>background, you allready get some exposure just from naturally occuring
>radioactive decay, and from outerspace.

The rule is DON'T add to background radiation, any ionising radiation
will be harmful given enough time. You never know when that one particular
gene gets hit to force a cell to go cancerous - its a statistical phenomena,
therefore there is NO SAFE dose - don't be misled by an out of date
idea about what radiation is. Heck they still transport strong magnets
in lead boxes for crying out loud !

>Well, everything does a little.  Polyethelye does offer some sheilding.

In practical terms the package of a PIC will provide NONE AT GAMMA
frequencies - it provides near 100% shielding against UV since its
opaque and UV is just above visible. Gamma is way above visible, it
so happens the attenuation is probably less that 0.0001% comments ????

>  I
>belive ceramic IC packages offer more than plastic packages (that's why we
>uses them in radiation hardened products).

Hang on - there are other issues here about radiation hardening, ceramic
packages provide negligible shielding - that is NOT radiation hardening.
Ceramic packages are generally more useful for better sealing and better
heat transfer - shielding is definitely negligible for GAMMA rays, though
it 'might' have some benefit against low energy beta particles.

>Enough nuclear physics, lets get back to PIC's.

We've only had enough when its cleared up Norm, otherwise we will
all end up glowing in the dark and coughing up blood due to ignorance ;-)

Rgds

Mike
Perth, Western Australia

There is no a'priori reason that the ultimate truth will be interesting
or even useful, those moments of frustration during philosophical debate
would be replaced by the sheer terror which accompanies true knowledge.

Unsubscribe message should go here - please :)

1997\08\15@022013 by blunn

flavicon
face
Bob Lunn
08/15/97 04:20 PM


> ...there is NO safe DOSE of radiation.

    Ok, this _has_ become tedious but I can't resist.

    Mike, given that the risk of carcinogenesis when exposed
    to ionising radiation cannot be eliminated, how would
    you evaluate and manage the threats posed by the various
    beneficial uses of such radiation?

___Bob

Unsubscribe message would waste space here - no thanks :P

1997\08\15@023248 by Pasi T Mustalahti

picon face
Why is the window in the erasable devices ( EPROM) a small separately made
piece of quarts. Why isn't the whole upper side of the component made of
a large block of it. That would make the production cheaper. Erasure can
be made even through plexiglas for 5..10 times before it goes 'black' to
UV. And there is even some UV detectors packed in plastics, who stay
functionary for years. This kind of package could make OTP's obsolete.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTM, spam_OUTpasi.mustalahtiTakeThisOuTspamutu.fi, .....ptmustaKILLspamspam@spam@utu.fi, http://www.utu.fi/~ptmusta
Lab.ins. (mikrotuki) ATK-keskus/Mat.Luon.Tdk                    OH1HEK
Lab.engineer (PC support) Computer Center                       OI7234
Mail: Turun Yliopisto / Fysla, Vesilinnantie 5, 20014
Pt 02-3336669, FAX 02-3335632 (Pk 02-2387010, NMT 049-555577)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1997\08\15@035137 by Mike

flavicon
face
At 04:20 PM 8/15/97 +301000, you wrote:

>> ...there is NO safe DOSE of radiation.
>     Ok, this _has_ become tedious but I can't resist.

hehe - Such is life...

>     Mike, given that the risk of carcinogenesis when exposed
>     to ionising radiation cannot be eliminated, how would
>     you evaluate and manage the threats posed by the various
>     beneficial uses of such radiation?

Thats a very good question, I've not been in this situation so let
me think about it for a while. Though please specify are you talking
about diagnostic X-rays OR tracer isotopes OR radiation therapy OR
something else ?

>Unsubscribe message would waste space here - no thanks :P

Ah ha - what beautiful irony - your comment used up that bandwidth !

Rgds :)

Mike
Perth, Western Australia

1997\08\15@035551 by Mike

flavicon
face
At 09:31 AM 8/15/97 +0300, you wrote:
>Why is the window in the erasable devices ( EPROM) a small separately made
>piece of quarts. Why isn't the whole upper side of the component made of
>a large block of it. That would make the production cheaper.

No - quartz is not that easy to work, ceramic tops seal better, I think
the relative coefficients of thermal expansion would be one reason.

Erasure can
>be made even through plexiglas for 5..10 times before it goes 'black' to
>UV. And there is even some UV detectors packed in plastics, who stay
>functionary for years. This kind of package could make OTP's obsolete.

Could be dozens of reasons, we can speculate.

Doesn't plexiglas attentuate the short wavelengths of UV we need for
erasure ?

Rgds

mike
perth, Western Australia

1997\08\15@082558 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>>Sure there is according to the US 10CFR20 regulations from DOE.
>
>I reject the regulation - it is only a reference for convenience, there
>is NO safe DOSE of radiation.
>
>>  Dose is
>>something like 5 REM (radiation equivalent to man) per year for adults over
>>18 years of age (the formula is a little more complex).  BTW that is above
>>background, you allready get some exposure just from naturally occuring
>>radioactive decay, and from outerspace.
>
>The rule is DON'T add to background radiation, any ionising radiation
>will be harmful given enough time. You never know when that one particular

Mike, if there is NO SAFE DOSE you better stop living, but quick!  Who
knows when you might get cancer.

This gets back to the "reliability" thread which discussed probability of
harm based upon statistics.  If you aren't willing to risk a little, you
end up at a dead-end.

Better stop being capitalistic, too.  (Oh wait, you're from DOWN THERE, I
forgot, sorry, didn't mean to imply you already were).

>We've only had enough when its cleared up Norm, otherwise we will
>all end up glowing in the dark and coughing up blood due to ignorance ;-)

Norm and I went to college together for a year.  You picked the wrong guy
to discuss Nuclear Physics with - you'll lose!  He's even more of a geek
than me! (Norm- ignore that comment or I'll get the rest of the dorm after
you <G>  Say, you get the homecoming flyer this week?  Going?)

Andy

==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Montana Design - 409 S 6th St - Phillipsburg, NJ 08865
         Hardware & Software for Industry & R/C Hobbies
       "Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!"
==================================================================

1997\08\15@082604 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
At 09:31 AM 8/15/97 +0300, you wrote:
>Why is the window in the erasable devices ( EPROM) a small separately made
>piece of quarts. Why isn't the whole upper side of the component made of

Because this kind of quartz isn't cheap - it's manmade (we have a quartz
factory about 2 miles from my house is how I know).

Also, not all chips use quartz.  We now have epoxies which are UV-transparent.

Andy

==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Montana Design - 409 S 6th St - Phillipsburg, NJ 08865
         Hardware & Software for Industry & R/C Hobbies
       "Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!"
==================================================================

1997\08\15@082606 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>Thats a very good question, I've not been in this situation so let
>me think about it for a while. Though please specify are you talking
>about diagnostic X-rays OR tracer isotopes OR radiation therapy OR
>something else ?

What does it matter? All are beneficial.

Also, I happen to believe that nuclear armaments are a wonderful lifesaver
due to the fact that they have prevented major war for the past 50 years.
But that isn't politically correct on the bottom of the world, so here
comes another debate... <G>

Andy

==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Montana Design - 409 S 6th St - Phillipsburg, NJ 08865
         Hardware & Software for Industry & R/C Hobbies
       "Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!"
==================================================================

1997\08\15@085541 by Mike

flavicon
face
At 07:59 AM 8/15/97 -0400, you wrote:

>Mike, if there is NO SAFE DOSE you better stop living, but quick!  Who
>knows when you might get cancer.

Hey Andy you've misunderstood. I am saying that we should NOT be misled
into thinking there is such a notion as a safe DOSE of radiation, if
people have the illusion there is, then they will not be as quick to
object about those waste dumps which 'only give off safe doses', would
you want a 'SAFE DOSE' waste dump next to your primary school ?

Radiation exposure is like being shot at with lots of small powerful
bullets - even one does damage, and the effects are accumulative. So
therefore there is no SAFE dose of radiation - ie Don't accept the
notion that even small number of bullets hitting you is safe !

>This gets back to the "reliability" thread which discussed probability of
>harm based upon statistics.  If you aren't willing to risk a little, you
>end up at a dead-end.

Having the appreciation there is NO safe dose does not mean you don't take
a risk - especially if you already have cancer and are considering radiation
therapy as ONE of the potential treatments - I am saying its up to the
persons own commonsense and is not subject to a dehumanising formula
which has no basis in reality and can never be tested by experiment.
If I was to get cancer I would only consider radiation therapy as a last
resort - its like removing a growth by shooting at it. Especially since there
are many other treatments for a vast majority of cancers which are nowhere
near as indiscriminant as firing radiation at it.

>Better stop being capitalistic, too.  (Oh wait, you're from DOWN THERE, I
>forgot, sorry, didn't mean to imply you already were).

Sorry Andy - I don't know what you are referring to here - please explain ?

>>We've only had enough when its cleared up Norm, otherwise we will
>>all end up glowing in the dark and coughing up blood due to ignorance ;-)
>
>Norm and I went to college together for a year.  You picked the wrong guy
>to discuss Nuclear Physics with - you'll lose!  He's even more of a geek
>than me! (Norm- ignore that comment or I'll get the rest of the dorm after
>you <G>  Say, you get the homecoming flyer this week?  Going?)

Well I hope the College training was comprehensive because some of the
things Norm has said are tangential to basic facts about electromagnetic
radiation - maybe he's forgotten Maxwell and Debroglie. Back in 1986 I
was chief engineer and radiation officer for a local company - we used
Cesium 137 and Cobalt 60 sources for measureing iron ore flow rates in
a processor controlled feedback system. Even though I was at University
back in late 70's we still had to undergo a significant crash course in
the whole field - the most notable issue being that any ionising radiation
is accumulative - so don't ADD to that already in the background.

Rgds

mike
Perth, Western Australia

1997\08\15@090356 by Norm Cramer

flavicon
face
At 07:59 AM 8/15/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>>Sure there is according to the US 10CFR20 regulations from DOE.
>>
>>I reject the regulation - it is only a reference for convenience, there
>>is NO safe DOSE of radiation.
>>

That is true if you also subscribe to the theory that there are no safe
cars, planes, trains, electromagnetic waves, air, sun, etc.


>>>  Dose is
>>>something like 5 REM (radiation equivalent to man) per year for adults over
>>>18 years of age (the formula is a little more complex).  BTW that is above
>>>background, you allready get some exposure just from naturally occuring
>>>radioactive decay, and from outerspace.
>>
>>The rule is DON'T add to background radiation, any ionising radiation
>>will be harmful given enough time. You never know when that one particular
>

OK if this is so, then we should all live at sea level.  < set sarcasim flag>
And we all know how many mutants there are in places like Denver due to the
higher background levels of radiation now don't we. <clear sarcasim flag>

>Mike, if there is NO SAFE DOSE you better stop living, but quick!  Who
>knows when you might get cancer.

It is true that exposure to ionizing radiation will slightly increase your
chances of cancer but the increase is a low %.  It is also true that if you
walk up and down stairs you increase the probability that you will fall.  I
don't know about you, but I don't avoid stairs.  They can be quite usefull.
I am carefull using them but still use them.  This does not mean that you
should not worry about limiting your exposure.  You are a fool if you
"PLAN" to get (or worse don't plan not to get) your leagal dose limit of
radiation.

>
>This gets back to the "reliability" thread which discussed probability of
>harm based upon statistics.  If you aren't willing to risk a little, you
>end up at a dead-end.
>
>Better stop being capitalistic, too.  (Oh wait, you're from DOWN THERE, I
>forgot, sorry, didn't mean to imply you already were).
>

I'm not touching this one :-)

>>We've only had enough when its cleared up Norm, otherwise we will
>>all end up glowing in the dark and coughing up blood due to ignorance ;-)
>

Well, coughing up blood can happen but ask the Russians how much exposure
it takes.  As for glowing, glowing comes from radioactive decay.  If you
got radiated to the point that you glowed, you wouldn't care anymore
because you would have allready died.

>Norm and I went to college together for a year.  You picked the wrong guy
>to discuss Nuclear Physics with - you'll lose!  He's even more of a geek
>than me! (Norm- ignore that comment or I'll get the rest of the dorm after
>you <G>  Say, you get the homecoming flyer this week?  Going?)
>

Thanks for the vote of confidence Andy.  I might have been offended except
for the "more of a geek than me" line :-)

Norm

1997\08\15@090403 by Mike

flavicon
face
At 08:03 AM 8/15/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>Thats a very good question, I've not been in this situation so let
>>me think about it for a while. Though please specify are you talking
>>about diagnostic X-rays OR tracer isotopes OR radiation therapy OR
>>something else ?
>
>What does it matter? All are beneficial.

Wrong.

1.  Diagnostic X-rays can be harmful if equipment is not frequently
   checked and since its accumulative they can also cause cancers, check
   your local statistics if you don't believe me. Many people were X-rayed
   too often for diagnosis and now have X-ray induced cancers.

2.  Tracer isotopes not necessarily beneficial in all cases. Very dangerous
   and easy to misuse in diagnostic circumstances.

3.  Radiation therapy - see other post - this is like removing something
   by shooting lots of bullets - still very messy and dangerous.

>Also, I happen to believe that nuclear armaments are a wonderful lifesaver
>due to the fact that they have prevented major war for the past 50 years.

You forget there has already been a nuclear war the second bomb of which
was completely unnecessary. And we almost had conflict on several occasions
due to failing systems in USA and USSR. Now we have lots of fissile material,
the danger of annihalation is not over by any means. Its more likely that
good commercial sense prevented war not the presence of missiles - many
hotheads on both sides were too eager to use them at the earliest opportunity.

>But that isn't politically correct on the bottom of the world, so here
>comes another debate... <G>

Not a debate just an improved understanding - feel free to email me
privately if you like :)

rgds

mike
Perth, Western Australia

1997\08\15@092705 by Norm Cramer

flavicon
face
At 08:55 AM 8/15/97 -0400, you wrote:
>At 07:59 AM 8/15/97 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>Mike, if there is NO SAFE DOSE you better stop living, but quick!  Who
>>knows when you might get cancer.
>
>Hey Andy you've misunderstood. I am saying that we should NOT be misled
>into thinking there is such a notion as a safe DOSE of radiation, if
>people have the illusion there is, then they will not be as quick to
>object about those waste dumps which 'only give off safe doses', would
>you want a 'SAFE DOSE' waste dump next to your primary school ?

Remeber the US law says for persons over 18years old.  The law would not
alow the dump by the primary school.


>
>Radiation exposure is like being shot at with lots of small powerful
>bullets - even one does damage, and the effects are accumulative. So
>therefore there is no SAFE dose of radiation - ie Don't accept the
>notion that even small number of bullets hitting you is safe !
>

Which leads me back to your first error, that the radiation will not
interact with the PIC.  If it interacts with people then it will with the
semiconductor material in the PIC.  How is the question.  You said it would
pass right through.  If it passes through a PIC, then it will pass through
you too.


{Quote hidden}

Well, I think we must have misunderstood each other.  I was pointing out
that gammas act like particles not waves like other (what most people
referto as) elctromagnetic radiation.  For example, you use wave theory for
determining the characteristics of a cell phone RF system.  You use
particle theory for gammas.  BTW my nuclear course work was at the graduate
level and I worked in the feild for over 5 years before leaving for better
carrer oportunity.

BTW, I think we may have strayed enough off topic to stop using the
PIClist.  We can continue via private e-mail if you like.

Norm

1997\08\15@112059 by Mike

flavicon
face
OK Guys this is the last one on the PICLIST - all else private please :)


At 08:01 AM 8/15/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>>I reject the regulation - it is only a reference for convenience, there
>>>is NO safe DOSE of radiation.
>
>That is true if you also subscribe to the theory that there are no safe
>cars, planes, trains, electromagnetic waves, air, sun, etc.

No Norm - accepting there is a notion of a 'safe dose' of radiation is
like saying its ok to be shot a certain number of times. For some
reason you and Andy are over-reacting and confusing risks of ionising
radiation with necessary aspects of living in this society - I don't
think its normal to accept the notion that radiation has a safe dose.

All I am pointing out Norm/Andy is the *illusion* of a Safe Dose !

>>>The rule is DON'T add to background radiation, any ionising radiation
>>>will be harmful given enough time. You never know when that one particular
>
>OK if this is so, then we should all live at sea level.  < set sarcasim flag>
>And we all know how many mutants there are in places like Denver due to the
>higher background levels of radiation now don't we. <clear sarcasim flag>

No. I am referring to the desire not to spread isotopes or indulge in
unnecessary X-rays etc. Don't you have a Radon controversy in USA, if you
had the option of working in the basement or in an upstairs study - then
are you saying "Gee the Radon is a Safe Dose so I'll work in the basement".
If it was me I wouldn't let my kids in the basement ever.

>>>We've only had enough when its cleared up Norm, otherwise we will
>>>all end up glowing in the dark and coughing up blood due to ignorance ;-)
>>
>
>Well, coughing up blood can happen but ask the Russians how much exposure
>it takes.  As for glowing, glowing comes from radioactive decay.  If you
>got radiated to the point that you glowed, you wouldn't care anymore
>because you would have allready died.

True. I was joking. I don't think any sane individual will so easily
accept some government regulation so easily - didn't they inject children
in USA with 'safe doses' as part of an experiment a few years ago. And
who says the government knows any better about radiation now, they thought
they did back then in the 70's.

Rgds

Mike
Perth, Western Australia

1997\08\15@114335 by nvdw

flavicon
face
> You forget there has already been a nuclear war the second bomb of which
> was completely unnecessary.

You weren't there, you can not be so judgemental.

If you want to discuss this email me privately.

Regards
Nic

1997\08\15@120219 by Norm Cramer

flavicon
face
This is my last one on the list also

At 11:20 AM 8/15/97 -0400, you wrote:
>OK Guys this is the last one on the PICLIST - all else private please :)
>
>
>>That is true if you also subscribe to the theory that there are no safe
>>cars, planes, trains, electromagnetic waves, air, sun, etc.
>
>No Norm - accepting there is a notion of a 'safe dose' of radiation is
>like saying its ok to be shot a certain number of times. For some
>reason you and Andy are over-reacting and confusing risks of ionising
>radiation with necessary aspects of living in this society - I don't
>think its normal to accept the notion that radiation has a safe dose.
>
>All I am pointing out Norm/Andy is the *illusion* of a Safe Dose !
>

What I am trying to say is that it's no worse at limited levels than lots
of other things.  Yeah car accidents are different.  You don't have a
little car accident every time you drive.  Air pollution, second hand
smoke, etc are the same.  You get a little damage from each exposure and
overtime if the exposure is high enough it can cause problems.  Most people
pannic because they don't understand radiation.  Comments like "cough up
blood, and glow" to us who know are obviously severe situations but to
thoes uneducated in such things they are frightening.  I belive that you do
understand the phenomon but thik you are exagerating the real risk.

(Sorry but those who are tired of this, will hear no more from me on this
on the list.)

1997\08\15@165432 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>No Norm - accepting there is a notion of a 'safe dose' of radiation is
>like saying its ok to be shot a certain number of times. For some

Actually, it _is_ safe to be shot.  It depends upon caliber, distance,
projectile type, etc.  Just like radiation.

How can you reasonably sit in front of a CRT and write what you do.  Aren't
there Euro standards are EMI???

>No. I am referring to the desire not to spread isotopes or indulge in
>unnecessary X-rays etc. Don't you have a Radon controversy in USA, if you
>had the option of working in the basement or in an upstairs study - then
>are you saying "Gee the Radon is a Safe Dose so I'll work in the basement".
>If it was me I wouldn't let my kids in the basement ever.

Only in certain parts.  WHere I live we have a _lot_ of uranium deposits,
hence the radon.  It is only a problem if you have a well-sealed basement,
and it's only a problem with enviro-whackos and similar subhumans.

Andy

==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Montana Design - 409 S 6th St - Phillipsburg, NJ 08865
         Hardware & Software for Industry & R/C Hobbies
       "Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!"
==================================================================

1997\08\16@111257 by rlunn

flavicon
face
> OK if this is so, then we should all live at sea level.
> <set sarcasim flag>
> And we all know how many mutants there are in places like Denver
> due to the higher background levels of radiation now don't we.
> <clear sarcasim flag>

       Well, I always thought Elway was too good to be the result of
       natural genetics.  ;)

       But, Norm, your sarcasm is misplaced.  First, there is a distinct
       difference between mutagenesis and carcinogenesis (which your
       "four years of post-graduate studies in Nuclear Physics" should
       have elucidated).

       Second, the relationship between exposure to ionising radiation
       due to altitude and the incidence of various types of cancer and
       birth defects is well documented.  The most extreme example being,
       of course, people who work on aeroplanes in flight.

___Bob

1997\08\16@115218 by rlunn

flavicon
face
>> No Norm - accepting there is a notion of a 'safe dose' of radiation is
>> like saying its ok to be shot a certain number of times.
>
> Actually, it _is_ safe to be shot.  It depends upon caliber, distance,
> projectile type, etc.  Just like radiation.

       The discussion concerns _ionising_ radiation.  The proper analogy
       would be "its ok to be shot in the left temple with a small calibre
       handgun at close range".

       Hmm...  After you, Andy.

       The effects of radiation are both statistical and cumulative.

       Therefore, there is no dose of radiation (however small) that is
       risk free and so could be called 'safe'.

       The exposure limits that are set by regulatory authorities are
       _not_ safe doses, they are 'acceptable risk doses' (where,
       curiously, the determination of acceptable risk is often made
       by those same authorities).

       In practice, the determination of acceptable risk is usually
       made with reference to some other form of exposure to radiation.
       For example, an annual exposure equivalent to one chest x-ray
       may be deemed to constitute an acceptable risk, and so the
       corresponding equivalent dose is called 'safe'.

       Of course, this process is specious because while the two
       exposures carry the same risk, no consideration has been given
       to the harm or benefit that accrues from each exposure.

> How can you reasonably sit in front of a CRT and write what you do.
> Aren't there Euro standards are EMI???

       I accept the risk of sitting in front of a CRT because it
       benefits me to do so.  The benefit does not _eliminate_ the
       risk, it merely _outweighs_ it.

       The existence of a government standard or regulation does
       not constrain physics to behave accordingly.

> Only in certain parts.  Where I live we have a _lot_ of uranium deposits,
> hence the radon.  It is only a problem if you have a well-sealed basement

       A well-sealed basement increases risk by allowing radon
       gas to accumulate.

       A well-ventilated basement decreases risk by allowing
       radon gas to disperse.

       A well-ventilated basement does not eliminate risk.

___Bob

1997\08\16@132314 by Aydin Yesildirek

flavicon
face
>         The effects of radiation are both statistical and cumulative.
>
>         Therefore, there is no dose of radiation (however small) that is
>         risk free and so could be called 'safe'.
...........
> ___Bob
>


I am not expert in this subject, though I know we get some level of
harmful radiation in daily regular life from sun to CRTs. Moreover,
in a conference, the dean of college of engineering at Idaho State
University, the other nuclear dump state, claiming daily dose of radiation
increasing the life expectancy and lowering cancer rate:)! He was
suggesting to get daily radiation pills with vitamins. Don't lough
I am not joking. I didn't buy his argument but the story is true, he
was statistically making some points.

I would like make couple of points here. If you don't claim that
radiation is good you don't get funding from DOE. Therefore you'll
never be a dean nor governor in the state of Idaho.

Second point is that whenever you talk about fuzzy concepts there
will always be different evaluations. Since nothing is crisp and
it'll keep going and going.


Aydin

1997\08\16@204932 by rlunn

flavicon
face
Andy Kunz wrote:

> Also, I happen to believe that nuclear armaments are a wonderful lifesaver
> due to the fact that they have prevented major war for the past 50 years.

       <sigh>  How can you say such irrational things?

       You cannot PROVE a NEGATIVE argument.

       If I take an aspirin and my headache goes away, the observation of
       relief does not prove a relationship.  You would need to conduct
       double blind experiments to establish a statistical probability of
       a causal link.

       It is not a 'fact' that the possession of nuclear arms by various
       countries has prevented a major war.  It is a fact that various
       countries possess nuclear arms.  It is a fact that no major war
       has occured.  You cannot demonstrate a relationship between these.

       If you wish to hold, as an article of faith, that there is a
       relationship, then that is fine.  But your original statement is
       untenable.

> But that isn't politically correct on the bottom of the world, so here
> comes another debate... <G>

       <sigh>  How can you say such irrational things?

       Andy, you are treading on VERY dangerous ground here.  You seem
       to be confusing Australia and New Zealand.  If you persist in
       this misrepresentation you photo WILL be posted at all ports of
       entry.  Please remember that Ansell is an Australian company.  ;)

       Of course, due to the fact that Americans are ignorant of geography
       and of world affairs your confusion is to be expected.

___Bob

1997\08\16@211226 by rlunn

flavicon
face
Aydin Yesildirek wrote:

> In a conference, the dean of college of engineering at Idaho State
> University, the other nuclear dump state, claiming daily dose of
> radiation increasing the life expectancy and lowering cancer rate!

       I don't know to what the Dean was refering (and, as you point out,
       he was probably not a disinterested observer) but...

       Human cells have very extensive and effective mechanisms for
       detecting and repairing the genetic damage caused by ionising
       radiation.  Some researchers believe that these mechanisms are
       much more extensive than would be expected given the amount of
       genetic damage that actually occurs naturally.  That is, the
       benefit of these mechanisms to the organism is outweighed by
       their cost, and so there should be no selective pressure in
       favour of them.

       An explanation for this discrepancy (which may not, of course,
       actually exist as it depends upon somewhat speculative inter-
       pretation of various data) is that the background radiation
       flux has, in the past, been at much higher levels than today.

___Bob

PS:     I have found that engineers have great difficulty understanding
       biological systems and processes.  I would give little credence
       to anything a 'dean of engineering' said in relation to life
       expectancy and cancer rates!

1997\08\16@211636 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>University, the other nuclear dump state, claiming daily dose of

Which brings up a funny I received recently (a little humor could help this
thread I think)

Why is it that New Jersey has so many toxic waste dumps and California has
so many lawyers?

<<<answer below>>>

















New Jersey had first choice.

Smile guys!

Andy

==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Montana Design - 409 S 6th St - Phillipsburg, NJ 08865
         Hardware & Software for Industry & R/C Hobbies
       "Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!"
==================================================================

1997\08\16@232936 by Sean Breheny

flavicon
face
At 10:49 AM 8/17/97 +0000, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

       While it is true that it would be near to impossible to PROVE that
nuclear weapons prevented WW III, I think that a very strong case can be
made that they did. After all, isn't this how ALL historical argumentation
must be done, since historical experimentation can't be done and rarely does
an event get repeated in history under the same conditions, or especially
under conditions which allow it to be a "double blind" test.
       For instance, if a man runs into a bank with a gun and threatens to
rob it, and I take out a gun and show him that I have it, and he then runs
out of the bank, MOST people would agree that he probably ran out when he
saw that I had comparable armament and that he was taking a much more
substantial risk than if he were challenging an unarmed group of people.
       Yet, according to your argument, I should not assume that he ran out
because I pulled the gun. No, I can't prove that he did, it is just the best
explanation that anyone can come up with for why he left.

Sean

1997\08\17@000542 by Mike

flavicon
face
At 11:27 PM 8/16/97 -0400, you wrote:

>        For instance, if a man runs into a bank with a gun and threatens to
>rob it, and I take out a gun and show him that I have it, and he then runs
>out of the bank, MOST people would agree that he probably ran out when he
>saw that I had comparable armament and that he was taking a much more
>substantial risk than if he were challenging an unarmed group of people.

Hey Sean wakeup,

The unfortuanate fact is history show that when people/armies have
comparable armaments - they use em, seems to make no difference. For
most hothead robbers - you show em a gun and they'll try and shoot
you first - armed guards don't stop ALL robberies by stupid people.

There are several reasons we didn't have WW3 (so far) mainly commercial
but, we NOW have more danger of WW3 scenario BECAUSE of failing systems,
this would not be the case if we didn't STILL have nuclear weapons.

May I suggest that such a discussion you send it private to Robert Lunn
and not to the piclist...

If you really need to reply to me - please make it private.

Rgds

Mike
Perth, Western Australia

1997\08\17@001933 by Matt Calder

flavicon
face
>
>         Of course, due to the fact that Americans are ignorant of geography
>         and of world affairs your confusion is to be expected.
>
> ___Bob
>

<sigh> How can you say such irrational things.

       Matt

/*****************************************/
/* Matt Calder, Dept. of Statistics, CSU */
/* http://www.stat.colostate.edu/~calder */
/*****************************************/

1997\08\18@060701 by Tom Handley

picon face
re: `above subject'...

  Can we drop this? Invest in another OTP part or spend a few $ more and
get a UV part. It's cheaper than `eleventy billion' for exotic techniques
that won't work and make folks `glow in the dark' ;-)

  Thanks,

     - Tom

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1997 , 1998 only
- Today
- New search...