Silicon Valley (and Montana) radiation levels | Hacker News Reader

Silicon Valley (and Montana) radiation levels

lcamtuf.coredump.cx

30 pointsxf--17 comments

Yeah. Here is the manual. https://manualzz.com/doc/7054597/nukalerter-manual

From the manual:

Gamma Sensitivity: 18 counts/sec @ 1mR/hr (10μSv/hr) Accuracy (Cs137): ± 20% background through 600R/hr Saturation: No saturation below 1000R/hr Background: <10 counts/minute (Shielded)

Downvote me all you want this isn't useful unless shit gets real.

Here is an interesting paper on gamma-ray monitoring:

https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1356898

Here is [ostensibly]: some specs on the 7121 dectetor the "Nukalert" shitty USB product is based on: https://www.lndinc.com/products/geiger-mueller-tubes/712-2/

In fact, this question on the website makes no sense at all. The montana as well as the SF readings are within the noise of the sensor. ugh. sigh. FUD.

"Q: Wait a moment... why are Montana readings quite a bit higher than in California? A: SF Bay Area is a coastal region, while the other location is up in the mountains - which means that there is less atmosphere to stop cosmic rays. The difference in measurements is quite substantial, around 40%. If that freaks you out, consider that a commercial flight easily exposes you to about 300 µR/h!"

Instrument noise, background radiation, and measurement accuracy are three different completely different things.

yes they are. can you explain what your graphs are showing then, please?

I think they are showing nothing but noise.

Ugh So many this.

Looks like most news are just thermal noise from the wires leading to the (apparently missing) sensors that is then ran through the google translate or somthing.

+/- a couple hundred or uRh? Pfew. You can have like 1-2Rh and never even notice it.

Interesting FAQ thing there too.

Q: Wait a moment... why are Montana readings quite a bit higher than in California?

A: SF Bay Area is a coastal region, while the other location is up in the mountains - which means that there is less atmosphere to stop cosmic rays. The difference in measurements is quite substantial, around 40%. If that freaks you out, consider that a commercial flight easily exposes you to about 300 µR/h!

With bonus link to author's home decor recommendation, toward the bottom. Such clarity! Such brevity!

Aw hell, here it is here: https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/geiger/

Yeah. Super sweet when he explains that ordering the atmega is best done over cash or bitcoin for "opsec" reasons.

you don't know you lcamtuf is, do you? I understand you're all worked up by his apparent misuse of radioactivity-detecting instruments, but... he's a bit smarter than most humans, I tend to give him some credit.

I suggest starting here, https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/ personally I'm a big fan because of the Guerilla Guide to CNC, he has clearly researched his stuff.

No, I didn't till your post. Just read a bit about him. Meh. He seems un-stupid and to have started out with things a bit later than me. I don't really evaluate peoples social standing. Bad measures are bad measures. @dekhn I might note that you don't really know who I am. Nobody does.

I wouldn't call my statements "worked up by his apparent misuse of radioactivity-detecting instruments"

I would call them reasonable statements of someone who gets pissed off by FUD. Can you [or HE] explain to me how this is not FUD?

I'm not sure what you think is FUD in the post. All the statements about radiation and health are approximately correct. They don't attempt to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt- quite the opposite, they attempt to avoid doing so.

Could you be clearer about what you think the actual problem is? Is it just that his readings are in the noise of the sensor? Or his health claims? Something else?

Of course:

The problem is that the data is presented to the observer as something that is within the measurement spectrum. It is not. The graphs show simply noise within the expected spectrum of noise for both the Montana and San Francisco data.

Next there is some statement about increased cancer risk which doesn't really reference anything at all but on first blush seems intended to reference then difference between the montana/SF data.

The data between both of those graphs if within the noise and we have little information on under what circumstances it was taken [and this is in addition to the fact that it is just noise!]

The authors first statement that "it probably means nothing" does nothing to excuse the fact that most viewers will likely view it as as something especially given the comments that follow.

FUD.

Seemed to me more like making gentle fun of people who can't tell the difference between noise and signal.

Seems to be "she"?

In 1993 (seven years after Chernobyl; central Ukraine) we as teenagers were playing with a sensor.

Holding it on unwashed palm was registering 40 microR/h. Washing was losing the readings down to 20 microR/h.

I live in Montana. After a wildfire burned part of our house last year, my wife and I were living in our basement during renovations. It was terrible for some unknown reason… headaches, sharp dry skin. Couldn’t sleep. We had had a radon system installed the year previous, so we ruled that out for a while. Until, we finally re-tested and saw it was at 27 pCi/l. Apparently the installer had inadvertently added a p-trap to the outake and so nothing was exhausting. Anyways we got that fixed and now we feel fine down there.

My point being that radiation can be felt. I’d describe it as a high-pitched sound ringing beneath your skin…

Nice to see it's fairly level - not great, not terrible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com