It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: intrptr
It was irradiated.
Tritium does not produce rays that can cause corrosive effects in metal. Try again.
I love, love, love when you make things up.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Bedlam
You said ANY radioactive source was deadly. Well, you're full of one. Not counting background radiation, which is always there.
There is no safe minimum dose.
Sources of ionizing radioactive materials are harmful when internalized, i.e., inhaled or ingested. You're talking about external sources when you cite "background radiation", i.e., energetic particles that come from outside and pass thru you.
They are also potentially harmful but not as harmful as internal sources, especially alpha emitters that became incorporated into the bodies bone or connective tissues, sit there irradiating nearby cells.
Disingenuous comparing fruit to tritium or internal sources vs. "background".
originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: intrptr
It was irradiated.
Tritium does not produce rays that can cause corrosive effects in metal. Try again.
I love, love, love when you make things up.
Ionizing radiation bombardment certainly does 'affect' anything in its decay path.
originally posted by: intrptr
Ionizing radiation bombardment certainly does 'affect' anything in its decay path.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Bedlam
Zero may be unsafe. See also: hormesis.
Now its zero emissions. Your redoubts are vanishing.
Been fun, gotta go...
The conventional approach for radiation protection is based on the ICRP's linear, no threshold (LNT) model of radiation carcinogenesis, which implies that ionizing radiation is always harmful, no matter how small the dose. But a different approach can be derived from the observed health effects of the serendipitous contamination of 1700 apartments in Taiwan with cobalt-60 (T1/2 = 5.3 y). This experience indicates that chronic exposure of the whole body to low-dose-rate radiation, even accumulated to a high annual dose, may be beneficial to human health. Approximately 10,000 people occupied these buildings and received an average radiation dose of 0.4 Sv, unknowingly, during a 9–20 year period. They did not suffer a higher incidence of cancer mortality, as the LNT theory would predict. On the contrary, the incidence of cancer deaths in this population was greatly reduced—to about 3 per cent of the incidence of spontaneous cancer death in the general Taiwan public. In addition, the incidence of congenital malformations was also reduced—to about 7 per cent of the incidence in the general public.
originally posted by: EartOccupant
...
Note: Not the most interesting post... but i had a laugh!
This experience indicates that chronic exposure of the whole body to low-dose-rate radiation, even accumulated to a high annual dose, may be beneficial to human health.
So you found a beat up front sight.
originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: intrptr
The overall condition of the sight pin tells you that it was roughly handled and not maintained. Tritium's not corrosive.
originally posted by: intrptr
Dude, the glass vial is Gone...
It's not like I'm making this stuff up
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: intrptr
Yu asked for evidence, and I found a museum pic of one... EOS.
And that thing's boogered up from one end to another. Betas aren't penetrating. So how are you accounting for the same corrosion all over? EOS.
originally posted by: intrptr
None of the glass vials containing tritium that were manufactured for those early sights are 'available' because they all dissolved because they were radioactive ...