While I was surfing the Internet, I went to visit this website which contains a map of detected radiation in a few spots of Taiwan: 203.69.102.242/gammadetect.php
When I came back to this map a couple of hours later, I found a surprising radiation peak detected in TaiChung (0.141 micro siever per hour, the usual background radiation at this place being only around 0.063~0.067).
This number gradually came back to the normal during the next 12 hours. However, I have no idea of the reason of this radiation peak, specially only on TaiChung.
Does anybody have any information on where this detector is located, and what could have been the source of the radiation next to it ?
To report a safety or security concern involving a nuclear facility or radioactive materials,
please contact AEC’s Nuclear Safety Duty Center
Phone : + 886 2 8231-7250
Fax : + 886 2 8231-7284
To visit our center, please call
886 2 2232-2230
To send questions, comments, or requests for information about AEC, nuclear safety, radiation protection or related topics, please fill out the following, and we will respond as soon as we can!
Your name
Sex male female
Actually, to find the location of the detector, it’s pretty easy.
Click on the bottom right blue triangle related to Taichung on your Taiwan map,
and you will find out that the detector is in:
in Taichung downtown, ZhongShan Park, 所在地：台中市精武路（台中氣象站） rmsp.trmc.aec.gov.tw/user/view_m … tor_title=台中
question 1 solved.
When I came back to this map a couple of hours later, I found a surprising radiation peak detected in TaiChung (0.141 micro siever per hour, the usual background radiation at this place being only around 0.63~0.67).
unquote
Isnt 0.141 actually LESS then 0.63 to 0.67 ?? Or am i missing something?
Since 0.141μSv/h is less than half the US average, and a tiny fraction of natural radiation in some other parts of the world, I wouldn’t be running for the hills just yet.
But it does make you curious as to what the cause is yes?[/quote]
Me? No. When you’re looking at such infinitesimal quantities, the needle has barely flickered on the dial.
It was obviously not natural, and we don’t know which radioactive element caused it.
It was a measurement in just 1 specific spot. We don’t know how far the source of the radiation was, how widespread it was, and how radioactive it was.
It was detected only on a few hours: It could be something linked to human activity, and if nobody know what it was then we can fear the worst. I heared that in the past the Taiwanese nuclear industry was caught stocking nuclear wastes in barrels in the open environment. This was only fixed after some people noticed about them and complained.
As an engineer, I don’t understand your use of the word infinitesimal here. we are talking about an increase of more than 100% of the radioactivity from an unknown source, detected in a big city. That’s not something you can disregard.
As a practical example, consider viruses. Their size doesn’t matter, what matter is the danger they represent.
It was obviously not natural, and we don’t know which radioactive element caused it.
It was a measurement in just 1 specific spot. We don’t know how far the source of the radiation was, how widespread it was, and how radioactive it was.
It was detected only on a few hours: It could be something linked to human activity, and if nobody know what it was then we can fear the worst. I heared that in the past the Taiwanese nuclear industry was caught stocking nuclear wastes in barrels in the open environment. This was only fixed after some people noticed about them and complained.[/quote]
More likely connected with incinerating medical waste or some type, maybe contaminated coal too. Or it could just a random occurence.
As an engineer, I don’t understand your use of the word infinitesimal here. we are talking about an increase of more than 100% of the radioactivity from an unknown source, detected in a big city. That’s not something you can disregard.[/quote]
infinitesimal means vanishingly small. The increase is 100% but the amounts we are talking about, whether 0.14 or 0.06μSv are minute. Way way way below harmful levels, even with continuous exposure at the higher level.
OK, viruses are a bad comparison, but the last part of this paragraph works: “what matters is the danger they represent”. This is precisely my point: a peak of 0.14μSv represents no danger at all.
Yes, and this number seem constant (0.095~0.105), which makes me think that it is the natural background over there.
[quote=“Taffy”]
OK, viruses are a bad comparison, but the last part of this paragraph works: “what matters is the danger they represent”. This is precisely my point: a peak of 0.14μSv represents no danger at all.[/quote]
An exposure of 0.141μSv/h for a few hours is not dangerous. What might be dangerous is the cause of this detected radiation increase.
Another example, which I hope will convince you:
The 40 stories building immediately next to your 1 story house is in fire. The detected increase of temperature in your kitchen is only 2 degrees, nothing dangerous.
If it is the cause, that’s the kind of things that should not happen in a big city.
It cannot be a random value from natural background radiation, unless random means getting a 7 from a 6 faces dice.
I sent an email to the AEC and I am waiting for their answer.
Taking a look at the wiki on background radiation and came across this interesting aside:
[quote]
The highest levels of natural background radiation recorded in the world is from areas around Ramsar, particularly at Talesh-Mahalleh which is a very high background radiation area (VHBRA) having an effective dose equivalent several times in excess of ICRP-recommended radiation dose limits for radiation workers and up to 200 times greater than normal background levels. Most of the radiation in the area is due to dissolved radium-226 in water of hot springs along with smaller amounts of uranium and thorium due to travertine deposits. There are more than nine hot springs in the area with different concentrations of radioisotopes, and these are used as spas by locals and tourists.[15] This high level of radiation does not seem to have caused ill effects on the residents of the area and even possibly has made them slightly more radioresistant, which is puzzling and has been called “radiation paradox”. It has also been reported that residents have healthier and longer lives.[14] On the basis of this and other evidence including the fact that life had originated in a much more irradiated environment, some scientists have questioned the validity of linear no-threshold model, on which all radiation regulations currently depend.[15] Others point out that some level of radiation might actually be good for health and have a positive effect on population based on the controversial radiation hormesis model, by jump starting DNA repair mechanisms inside the cell.[16][17] Background radiation doses in the immediate vicinities of particles of high atomic number materials, within the human body, have a small enhancement due to the photoelectric effect.[18][/quote]
