On 10/12/2023 14:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 09/12/2023 20:53, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 18:12:53 -0000 (UTC), jon <jon@nospam.cn> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 10:03:39 -0800, John Walliker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday 6 December 2023 at 16:48:09 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 06/12/2023 16:23, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>>> anything with a half-life in the tens of years will still be going
>>>>>> quite strong.
>>>>> well no, not really. If its got that long a half life it will still be
>>>>> going, quite *weakly*.
>>>>>
>>>>> The very few radionuclides that are 'of *real* concern' are those that
>>>>> manage to find an unhappy medium, Cobalt 60. Caesium 137, Strontium
>>>>> 90.
>>>>>
>>>>> All cooked up in fission reactions, all long enough lived to be a pain
>>>>> to wait to cool down and all short enough to be quite intensely
>>>>> radioactive. And in the case of Cobalt 60, more or less lethal.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think more people have been killed by (accidental) cobalt 60
>>>>> irradiation than any other source, but on the other hand its estimated
>>>>> to have treated 70 million people with existing cancers, successfully.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tons of the stuff around in any hospital X-ray, or CT scan department,
>>>>> or dental surgery. Keeps your supermarket veg fresh as well.
>>>>
>>>> Cobalt 60 is used for radiotherapy and food processing, but I have
>>>> never
>>>> heard of it being used for ordinary hospital or dental x-ray or
>>>> CT-scanning purposes.  It would be very difficult to get the point
>>>> source that is needed for a sharp image and there is no control over
>>>> the
>>>> energy which is needed to get good contrast in different tissues.
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>> It is probably the primary source of unnatural radiation for most
>>>>> people. I'll be getting another massive dose from a whole torso CT
>>>>> scan
>>>>> in a week or two.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Saki"
>>>
>>> When I was an apprentice in 1958 I used a 3mCi cobalt60 source for
>>> taking
>>> pictures of stainless steel pipe welds.
>>
>> My BiL was a metallurgist (MSc from Brunel, IIRC) and did much the
>> same thing at a local foundry, checking castings for defects. Some of
>> the castings were quite large. I don't know the strength of the
>> sources he used, but he had a special radiation-proof lab in which he
>> took photographs with a remotely operated camera.
>>
>> He died of a brain tumor some thirty years ago. There may or may not
>> have been a connection, but I always thought he was a bit cavalier
>> with his sources.
>>
> When I was offered adjuvant radiotheraphy, the oncologist said that
> there was a 15% greater chance of developing an unrelated cancer 15
> years or more later.

Once the body is susceptible to cancers, where perhaps your own immune
system is failing, then it naturally follows you are at a greater risk.

> That uses pretty high blasts of cobalt 60.
>
> Cobalt 60 is definitely capable of taking the radiation dose levels into
> the 'unacceptable' regions.

That is the intent, to kill off cancerous cells in Cobalt-60 Radiosurgery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_therapy

> And yet is is the dominant source of medical X-rays.

No it's not. More nonsense from TNP.

On 11/12/2023 04:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
> I think it is used in a CT scanner actually.
>
> I have to defer on normal x-rays. I thought they had got rid of that
> ancient method years ago

Since you mentioned you are getting one shortly you can ask when you are
there.

IAC Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt-60

says that the decay of Cobalt60 to Nickel emits beta and gamma radiation
- not X rays.

Andy

On 11/12/2023 17:49, Vir Campestris wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt-60
>
> says that the decay of Cobalt60 to Nickel emits beta and gamma radiation
> - not X rays.

You might want to consider the difference between gamma radiation and
X-rays, and then explain it to me :-). My confused understanding is that
the difference is how they are created, not what they are.

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 23:43:15 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote:

>On 11/12/2023 17:49, Vir Campestris wrote:
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt-60
>>
>> says that the decay of Cobalt60 to Nickel emits beta and gamma radiation
>> - not X rays.
>
>You might want to consider the difference between gamma radiation and
>X-rays, and then explain it to me :-). My confused understanding is that
>the difference is how they are created, not what they are.

You are correct. Radio waves, light waves, X-rays and gamma rays are
all part of the electromagnetic spectrum, going from low to high
energies, respectively. X-rays are generated when electrons,
accelerated by a high voltage, strike a target anode. Gamma rays arise
from energy changes within the nuclei of atoms when those atoms break
up due to instability. X-rays tend to have lower energies than
gamma-rays, say up to 100keV, while gamma rays are usually up in the
several MeV range. Co-60 emits two gammas, at 1.17 and 1.33MeV.

--
Chris

On 11/12/2023 17:49, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 11/12/2023 04:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>> I think it is used in a CT scanner actually.
>>
>> I have to defer on normal x-rays. I thought they had got rid of that
>> ancient method years ago
>
> Since you mentioned you are getting one shortly you can ask when you are
> there.
>
> IAC Wikipedia
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt-60
>
> says that the decay of Cobalt60 to Nickel emits beta and gamma radiation
> - not X rays.
>

gamma radiation *is* X- rays. High energy photons. Gamma is typically
applied to the higher energy part., that is all.

> Andy

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 11/12/2023 23:43, Pancho wrote:
> On 11/12/2023 17:49, Vir Campestris wrote:
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt-60
>>
>> says that the decay of Cobalt60 to Nickel emits beta and gamma
>> radiation - not X rays.
>
> You might want to consider the difference between gamma radiation and
> X-rays, and then explain it to me :-). My confused understanding is that
> the difference is how they are created, not what they are.

No, in general you can't get to super high energies using electron
tubes. You need atomic decay for that.

So there is a quantitative difference in energy, but not in quality.
X-rays, light, infra red, ultraviolet, radio, microwave, and gamma rays
are all ionising radiation of photons. The only difference is the
wavelength.

And of course how you would normally produce them.

I *thought* they used high energy gamma to do CT scans. Because it is
more penetrating. Apparently they don't though.

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 12 Dec 2023 at 07:49:24 GMT, "Chris Hogg" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 23:43:15 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/2023 17:49, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt-60
>>>
>>> says that the decay of Cobalt60 to Nickel emits beta and gamma radiation
>>> - not X rays.
>>
>> You might want to consider the difference between gamma radiation and
>> X-rays, and then explain it to me :-). My confused understanding is that
>> the difference is how they are created, not what they are.
>
> You are correct. Radio waves, light waves, X-rays and gamma rays are
> all part of the electromagnetic spectrum, going from low to high
> energies, respectively. X-rays are generated when electrons,
> accelerated by a high voltage, strike a target anode. Gamma rays arise
> from energy changes within the nuclei of atoms when those atoms break
> up due to instability. X-rays tend to have lower energies than
> gamma-rays, say up to 100keV, while gamma rays are usually up in the
> several MeV range. Co-60 emits two gammas, at 1.17 and 1.33MeV.

Going down the energy spectrum from X-rays, you move into extreme UV, then
moderate UV, then light, then microwaves. The boundary between photons with
enough energy to ionise an atom (and therebye damage DNA -> possible cancers)
is somewhere in the UV. WHich is why any mention of 5G being super-dangerous
is bollocks.

The decay of radioactive potassium in your body produces about 400 or so
gammas with an energy of around 1.5MeV, every second. It also produces around
3600 electrons every second that shoot off with about the same energy. And
your body, for the most part, copes with this on an ongoing basis.

--
Tim

On 12/12/2023 09:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/12/2023 23:43, Pancho wrote:
>> On 11/12/2023 17:49, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt-60
>>>
>>> says that the decay of Cobalt60 to Nickel emits beta and gamma
>>> radiation - not X rays.
>>
>> You might want to consider the difference between gamma radiation and
>> X-rays, and then explain it to me :-). My confused understanding is
>> that the difference is how they are created, not what they are.
>
> No, in general you can't get to super high energies using electron
> tubes. You need atomic decay for that.
>
> So there is a quantitative difference in energy, but not in quality.
> X-rays, light, infra red, ultraviolet,  radio, microwave, and gamma rays
> are all ionising radiation of photons. The only difference is the
> wavelength.
>
> And of course how you would normally produce them.
>
> I *thought* they used high energy gamma to do CT scans. Because it is
> more penetrating. Apparently they don't though.
>

I wouldn't be too sure. The more I read, the less I know. This has
irritated me since A-level physics days.

Quote:
Occasionally, one term or the other is used in specific contexts due
to historical precedent, based on measurement (detection) technique, or
based on their intended use rather than their wavelength or source.
Thus, gamma-rays generated for medical and industrial uses, for example
radiotherapy, in the ranges of 6–20 MeV, can in this context also be
referred to as X-rays.

Cite: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray>

On 12/12/2023 13:02, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2023 at 07:49:24 GMT, "Chris Hogg" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 23:43:15 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/12/2023 17:49, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt-60
>>>>
>>>> says that the decay of Cobalt60 to Nickel emits beta and gamma radiation
>>>> - not X rays.
>>>
>>> You might want to consider the difference between gamma radiation and
>>> X-rays, and then explain it to me :-). My confused understanding is that
>>> the difference is how they are created, not what they are.
>>
>> You are correct. Radio waves, light waves, X-rays and gamma rays are
>> all part of the electromagnetic spectrum, going from low to high
>> energies, respectively. X-rays are generated when electrons,
>> accelerated by a high voltage, strike a target anode. Gamma rays arise
>> from energy changes within the nuclei of atoms when those atoms break
>> up due to instability. X-rays tend to have lower energies than
>> gamma-rays, say up to 100keV, while gamma rays are usually up in the
>> several MeV range. Co-60 emits two gammas, at 1.17 and 1.33MeV.
>
> Going down the energy spectrum from X-rays, you move into extreme UV, then
> moderate UV, then light, then microwaves. The boundary between photons with
> enough energy to ionise an atom (and therebye damage DNA -> possible cancers)
> is somewhere in the UV. WHich is why any mention of 5G being super-dangerous
> is bollocks.
>
> The decay of radioactive potassium in your body produces about 400 or so
> gammas with an energy of around 1.5MeV, every second. It also produces around
> 3600 electrons every second that shoot off with about the same energy. And
> your body, for the most part, copes with this on an ongoing basis.
>
And that is why sunlight, with its UV, is a carcinogen.

--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

On 11/12/2023 17:49, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 11/12/2023 04:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>> I think it is used in a CT scanner actually.
>>
>> I have to defer on normal x-rays. I thought they had got rid of that
>> ancient method years ago
>
> Since you mentioned you are getting one shortly you can ask when you are
> there.
>
> IAC Wikipedia
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt-60
>
> says that the decay of Cobalt60 to Nickel emits beta and gamma radiation
> - not X rays.

Which mean that it could penetrate further than x-rays.

However, accelerators are now used to get higher energies such that
modern x-ray and gamma ray territory overlap more than ever.

TNP could be talking of experiences that were decades ago.

On 12/12/2023 09:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/12/2023 23:43, Pancho wrote:
>> On 11/12/2023 17:49, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt-60
>>>
>>> says that the decay of Cobalt60 to Nickel emits beta and gamma
>>> radiation - not X rays.
>>
>> You might want to consider the difference between gamma radiation and
>> X-rays, and then explain it to me :-). My confused understanding is
>> that the difference is how they are created, not what they are.
>
> No, in general you can't get to super high energies using electron
> tubes. You need atomic decay for that.

Decades ago I might have agreed with you. However HEX High energy Xrays
are available with energies comparable with Cobalt-60 gamma rays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt-60
1.17 and 1.33 MeV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-energy_X-rays
80k to 1.0 MeV

But they are generally only used in cancer treatments.

> So there is a quantitative difference in energy, but not in quality.
> X-rays, light, infra red, ultraviolet,  radio, microwave, and gamma rays
> are all ionising radiation of photons. The only difference is the
> wavelength.

Quite, and x-ray and gamma rays are defined by their sources and not
necessarily wavelength. There is considerable overlap

> And of course how you would normally produce them.

Yes, I think you have it.

> I *thought* they used high energy gamma to do CT scans. Because it is
> more penetrating. Apparently they don't though.

On 12/12/2023 13:02, Tim Streater wrote:

> Going down the energy spectrum from X-rays, you move into extreme UV, then
> moderate UV, then light, then microwaves. The boundary between photons with
> enough energy to ionise an atom (and therebye damage DNA -> possible cancers)
> is somewhere in the UV. WHich is why any mention of 5G being super-dangerous
> is bollocks.

BigClive explains 5G death rays

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du8yQeQdMBk

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 13/12/2023 22:45, alan_m wrote:
> On 12/12/2023 13:02, Tim Streater wrote:
>
>> Going down the energy spectrum from X-rays, you move into extreme UV,
>> then
>> moderate UV, then light, then microwaves. The boundary between photons
>> with
>> enough energy to ionise an atom (and therebye damage DNA -> possible
>> cancers)
>> is somewhere in the UV. WHich is why any mention of 5G being
>> super-dangerous
>> is bollocks.
>
> BigClive explains 5G death rays
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du8yQeQdMBk
>

You can get cooked by high power microwaves. Don't stand in front of a
radar dish

Same frequencies as 5G

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

In article <ulekan$1b79o$4@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 13/12/2023 22:45, alan_m wrote:
> > On 12/12/2023 13:02, Tim Streater wrote:
> >
> >> Going down the energy spectrum from X-rays, you move into extreme UV,
> >> then
> >> moderate UV, then light, then microwaves. The boundary between photons
> >> with
> >> enough energy to ionise an atom (and therebye damage DNA -> possible
> >> cancers)
> >> is somewhere in the UV. WHich is why any mention of 5G being
> >> super-dangerous
> >> is bollocks.
> >
> > BigClive explains 5G death rays
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du8yQeQdMBk
> >

> You can get cooked by high power microwaves. Don't stand in front of a
> radar dish

Radio Gastronomy

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I *thought* they used high energy gamma to do CT scans. Because it is
> more penetrating. Apparently they don't though.

The terminology is a bit ambiguous. "CT" means computed tomography, which is a
rather general mathematical technique which might be used with data from any
kind of radiation: you might use sound ... or muons. However, the usage
of "CT scan" in medical contexts tends to - as far as I can tell - mean xrays.

#Paul