On 29/08/2012 13:00, Jo Stein wrote:
On 29.08.2012 12:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 29/08/2012 09:55, Jo Stein wrote:

Not only the fish is radioactive, also harry is radioactive. I
guess you are fat as stupid people also tend to be fat. Then you
have about one billion Bq in your body because of natural
radiation. Yes, one billion. I have about 610 000 000 ionizations
in my body per second. Pleaase, go and learn how we are designed
to tolerate this radiation.

No you don't. You are wrong by 5 *ORDERS* of magnitude. 100,000x

This is gibberish and you don't have a clue what you are talking
about. The dominant natural radioactivity in the human body is a
trace radioisotope of potassium and whole body content is about
40mg. There is also some natural Carbon 14. This translates to about
10,000 Bq about one hundred thousandth of the dose you claim. A
correct set of figures for radioactive components of a typical human
is online at:

http://physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm (title Human Body)

All up the grand total is about 10 kBq mostly from K40 and C14.
Everything else adds up to less than 100 Bq.

What is you weight. I can compute similar figures for you.
It is a very simple formula given on page 133 in this book:
http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/8819091

I could have scanned the page for you.
Here follows the same page in Norwegian as I am sure that
a smart guy like you will be able to tell where Thormod Henriksen
and David H. Maillie went wrong:

They didn't say that. Although the way they are presenting the data on
p133 is confusing for non scientists and you have comprehensively
demonstrated your cluelessness in referencing it with wonderful aplomb.

They guesstimate the number of *ionisations* caused by all natural
radiation by taking the annual dose energy and dividing into it the
energy needed to ionise air of 34eV. This is *very* misleading.

You are 100,000x less radioactive than this crazy description implies!

The distinction is between radioactive disintegrations per second and
the number of electronic ionisations caused by the fast particle track.
The latter is a larger number but not to quite the extent they claim.

A single alpha particle will cause a fair number of ions to be formed
before running out of steam. A penetrating hard X-ray may go right
through without causing more than a handful of events with its energy
largely unchanged. The body is not opaque to all natural radiation.

I presume they have an axe to grind as the presentation on p133 is
bordering on dishonest. Direct link in English for those interested:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W...page&q&f=false

--
Regards,
Martin Brown