Talk:Ionizing radiation

Know the spectrum

Microwaves and radio waves and infrared are not in the Ultraviolet spectrum! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C001:FFB0:A1CA:4003:9969:E722 (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the lede, but I'll re-write it so it cannot be misunderstood. SBHarris 00:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Relativistic?

The article now says:

Any charged massive particle can ionize atoms directly by fundamental interaction through the Coulomb force if it carries sufficient kinetic energy. This includes atomic nuclei, electrons, muons, charged pions, protons, and energetic charged nuclei stripped of their electrons, all of which must be moving at relativistic speeds to reach the required kinetic energy.

This is certainly not true! Typical 5 MeV alphas are moving about 5% c, which certainly is not "relativistic." An electron reaches 33 eV, which is certainly enough to ionize, at only about 1.1% of the speed of light. Again not relativistic. SBHarris 00:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Units?

This article desperately needs an explanation of the units of radiation dosage, to give general readers the tools to judge whether a dose of radiation is hazardous or not. This article used to have a "Units" section which clearly explained the relation between units of "exposure" (C/kg), absorbed dose (gray and rad), and equivalent dose (Sievert and rem). Now all it has is a "Measurement" section with an unsourced table listing a welter of units with no definitions or explanation of the relations between them, and an uninformative poster. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Radiation shielding

Air or skin can be sufficient to substantially attenuate low-energy alpha and beta radiation. Barriers of lead, concrete, or water give effective protection from more energetic particles such as gamma rays and neutrons.

The energy of the particles is not the main source for the differences in penetration of matter. On top of that, it is for example not generally true, that alpha particles are less energetic than gamma rays. If I remember correctly, the opposite is actually true. I would suggest to change it to something like:

Air or skin can be sufficient to substantially attenuate alpha and beta radiation. Barriers of lead, concrete, or water are often used to give effective protection from more penetrating particles such as gamma rays and neutrons. 2001:67C:10EC:52C3:8000:0:0:8E0 (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ionizing 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/20121116084754/http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP+Publication+103 to http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP+Publication+103

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Manufacturers of gas-filled tubes in the 1960s recommended ordinary 2-watts incandescent light bulbs for preionisation of the neon inside their products

Here on page 2, for example, and even the UV-A-emission of non-halogen bulbs run at their rated voltage is negligible. 85.244.68.79 (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge (2018) from Ultrasoft radiation & soft radiation & hard radiation to Ionizing radiation

I suggest that

• Ultrasoft radiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Soft radiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hard radiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

be merged here, into Ionizing radiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

As they currently exist, they are dicdefs suitable to be copied to Wiktionary (wikt:hard radiation; wikt:soft radiation; wikt:ultrasoft radiation). Copying/creating them on Wiktionary, and redirecting the terms here, with a short description of the terms here, would be all that would be needed to address the subjects. As they are very short stubs and are types of ionizing radiation, there doesn't seem to be a need for three separate articles apart from this fourth article. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

please voice your opinion on the merger here:

Merge: It won't hurt and transforms the stubs into helpful information for an already available article. --MaoGo (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Merge, as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Merge. I haven't heard of these terms before, but from what I can read on their respective wiki-pages, I agree that they belong in this article. In particular because they are defined in relation to their ionizing potential. RhinoMind (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Merge I'd question whether these terms are perhaps only used with X-rays, so maybe they should ultimately be moved to X-ray, but that can be decided later by someone who (unlike me) knows about it. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

1% of the speed of light

The particles generally travel at a speed that is greater than 1% of that of light. Thank you Girth Summit for taking a stab at rewording this sentence, but I am still confused. Don't all types of electromagnetic waves (gamma, xray, ultraviolet, microwave, visible, etc.) normally travel at the speed of light in vacuum, and extremely close to the speed of light in gases/atmosphere? If that's true, then the "greater than 1%" part may not be the most accurate way to say this. My impression is that these waves, unless slowed down or stopped by a solid material, are usually travelling at like 99.99%-100% of the speed of light. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Ionizing radiation includes both electromagnetic waves as well as high speed particles with mass. Electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light. Alpha and beta particles are not electromagnetic waves. They do travel at high speeds (above 1% the speed of light), but nowhere near the full speed of light. Kardoen (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Spaceflight and interplanetary travel

How are space station occupants (eg the International Space Station) typically be protected from the radiation types discussed? Likewise, what vehicle shielding methods can be used during interplanetary travel that would be effective and realistic ie light weight and low volume? Eg how can travelers to Mars be realistically protected by their transport vehicles and likewise how can they be protected once on Mars?

Inconsistency in neutron description

In the section describing neutrons, this article states "[n]eutrons have a neutral electrical charge often misunderstood as zero electrical charge"; however, in the article on neutrons themselves, it states "[t]he total electric charge of the neutron is 0 e." The claim that the electrical charge is "often misunderstood as zero" does not have any citations, so I'm unsure of where this claim came from. However, as it is in direct contradiction with another article that DOES source its claim that the charge on the neutron is zero, I believe this article should be edited to remove the "often misunderstood" language, unless it can be properly sourced. (Edited to add: I have added the "more citations needed" template to the section, as currently there is only one inline citation in the whole section.) Lumberjane Lilly (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)