Lethal dose of Radiation?
$begingroup$
How close to a supernova would you have to get a lethal dose of neutrino radiation?
if millions are flowing through you every second, why don't we just... die?
neutrinos estimation biophysics supernova
New contributor
Questionator is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How close to a supernova would you have to get a lethal dose of neutrino radiation?
if millions are flowing through you every second, why don't we just... die?
neutrinos estimation biophysics supernova
New contributor
Questionator is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How close to a supernova would you have to get a lethal dose of neutrino radiation?
if millions are flowing through you every second, why don't we just... die?
neutrinos estimation biophysics supernova
New contributor
Questionator is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
How close to a supernova would you have to get a lethal dose of neutrino radiation?
if millions are flowing through you every second, why don't we just... die?
neutrinos estimation biophysics supernova
neutrinos estimation biophysics supernova
New contributor
Questionator is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Questionator is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
103k121851176
103k121851176
New contributor
Questionator is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
QuestionatorQuestionator
112
112
New contributor
Questionator is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Questionator is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Questionator is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
exerpt from What If? by Randall Munroe
The phrase "lethal dose of neutrino radiation" is a weird one. I had to turn it over in my head a few times after I heard it.
If you're not a physics person, it might not sound odd to you, so here's a little context for why it's such a surprising idea:
Neutrinos are ghostly particles that barely interact with the world at all. Look at your hand—there are about a trillion neutrinos from the Sun passing through it every second.

OK, you can stop looking at your hand now.
The reason you don't notice the neutrino flood is that neutrinos hardly interact with ordinary matter at all. On average, out of that massive flood, only one neutrino will "hit" an atom in your body every few years.
In fact, neutrinos are so shadowy that the entire Earth is transparent to them; nearly all of the Sun's neutrino flood goes straight through it unaffected. To detect neutrinos, people build giant tanks filled with hundreds of tons of material in the hopes that they'll register the impact of a single solar neutrino.
This means that when a particle accelerator (which produces neutrinos) wants to send a neutrino beam to a detector somewhere else in the world, all it has to do is point the beam at the detector—even if it's on the other side of the Earth!

That's why the phrase "lethal dose of neutrino radiation" sounds weird—it mixes scales in an incongruous way. It's like the idiom "knock me over with a feather" or the phrase "football stadium filled to the brim with ants". If you have a math background, it's sort of like seeing the expression "ln(x)^e"—it's not that, taken literally, it doesn't make sense, but it's hard to imagine a situation where it would apply.(If you want to be mean to first-year calculus students, you can ask them to take the derivitave of ln(x)^e × dx. It looks like it would be "I" or something, but it's not.)
Similarly, it's so hard to get enough neutrinos to compel even a single one of them to interact with matter, making it hard to picture a scenario in which there'd be enough of them to affect you.
Supernovae provide that scenario. The physicist who mentioned this problem to me told me his rule of thumb for estimating supernova-related numbers: However big you think supernovae are, they're bigger than that.
Here's a question to give you a sense of scale:
Which of the following would be brighter, in terms of the amount of energy delivered to your retina:
A supernova, seen from as far away as the Sun is from the Earth, or
The detonation of a hydrogen bomb pressed against your eyeball?

Can you hurry up and set it off? This is heavy.
Applying the physicist rule of thumb suggests that the supernova is brighter. And indeed, it is ... by nine orders of magnitude.
That's why this is a neat question; supernovae are unimaginably huge and neutrinos are unimaginably insubstantial. At what point do these two unimaginable things cancel out to produce an effect on a human scale?
A paper by radiation expert Andrew Karam provides an answer. It explains that during certain supernovae, the collapse of a stellar core into a neutron star, 10 to the 57th neutrinos can be released (one for every proton in the star that collapses to become a neutron).
Karam calculates that the neutrino radiation dose at a distance of one parsec would be around half a nanosievert, or 1/500th the dose from eating a banana.
A fatal radiation dose is about 4 sieverts. Using the inverse-square law, we can calculate the radiation dose:
0.5 nanosieverts × (1 parsec/x)^2 = 5 sieverts
x = 0.00001118 parsecs=2.3 AU
2.3 AU is a little more than the distance between the Sun and Mars.
Core collapse supernovae happen to giant stars, so if you observed a supernova from that distance, you'd probably be inside the outer layers of the star that created it.

GRB 080391 was the most violent ever observed - especialy for the people who were floating next to it with surfboards.
The idea of neutrino radiation damage reinforces just how big supernovae are. If you observed a supernova from 1 AU away—and you somehow avoided being being incinerated, vaporized, and converted to some type of exotic plasma—even the flood of ghostly neutrinos would be dense enough to kill you.
New contributor
Synergy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You can't just cut and paste random copyrighted stuff on the internet.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
47 secs ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Questionator is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f456482%2flethal-dose-of-radiation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
exerpt from What If? by Randall Munroe
The phrase "lethal dose of neutrino radiation" is a weird one. I had to turn it over in my head a few times after I heard it.
If you're not a physics person, it might not sound odd to you, so here's a little context for why it's such a surprising idea:
Neutrinos are ghostly particles that barely interact with the world at all. Look at your hand—there are about a trillion neutrinos from the Sun passing through it every second.

OK, you can stop looking at your hand now.
The reason you don't notice the neutrino flood is that neutrinos hardly interact with ordinary matter at all. On average, out of that massive flood, only one neutrino will "hit" an atom in your body every few years.
In fact, neutrinos are so shadowy that the entire Earth is transparent to them; nearly all of the Sun's neutrino flood goes straight through it unaffected. To detect neutrinos, people build giant tanks filled with hundreds of tons of material in the hopes that they'll register the impact of a single solar neutrino.
This means that when a particle accelerator (which produces neutrinos) wants to send a neutrino beam to a detector somewhere else in the world, all it has to do is point the beam at the detector—even if it's on the other side of the Earth!

That's why the phrase "lethal dose of neutrino radiation" sounds weird—it mixes scales in an incongruous way. It's like the idiom "knock me over with a feather" or the phrase "football stadium filled to the brim with ants". If you have a math background, it's sort of like seeing the expression "ln(x)^e"—it's not that, taken literally, it doesn't make sense, but it's hard to imagine a situation where it would apply.(If you want to be mean to first-year calculus students, you can ask them to take the derivitave of ln(x)^e × dx. It looks like it would be "I" or something, but it's not.)
Similarly, it's so hard to get enough neutrinos to compel even a single one of them to interact with matter, making it hard to picture a scenario in which there'd be enough of them to affect you.
Supernovae provide that scenario. The physicist who mentioned this problem to me told me his rule of thumb for estimating supernova-related numbers: However big you think supernovae are, they're bigger than that.
Here's a question to give you a sense of scale:
Which of the following would be brighter, in terms of the amount of energy delivered to your retina:
A supernova, seen from as far away as the Sun is from the Earth, or
The detonation of a hydrogen bomb pressed against your eyeball?

Can you hurry up and set it off? This is heavy.
Applying the physicist rule of thumb suggests that the supernova is brighter. And indeed, it is ... by nine orders of magnitude.
That's why this is a neat question; supernovae are unimaginably huge and neutrinos are unimaginably insubstantial. At what point do these two unimaginable things cancel out to produce an effect on a human scale?
A paper by radiation expert Andrew Karam provides an answer. It explains that during certain supernovae, the collapse of a stellar core into a neutron star, 10 to the 57th neutrinos can be released (one for every proton in the star that collapses to become a neutron).
Karam calculates that the neutrino radiation dose at a distance of one parsec would be around half a nanosievert, or 1/500th the dose from eating a banana.
A fatal radiation dose is about 4 sieverts. Using the inverse-square law, we can calculate the radiation dose:
0.5 nanosieverts × (1 parsec/x)^2 = 5 sieverts
x = 0.00001118 parsecs=2.3 AU
2.3 AU is a little more than the distance between the Sun and Mars.
Core collapse supernovae happen to giant stars, so if you observed a supernova from that distance, you'd probably be inside the outer layers of the star that created it.

GRB 080391 was the most violent ever observed - especialy for the people who were floating next to it with surfboards.
The idea of neutrino radiation damage reinforces just how big supernovae are. If you observed a supernova from 1 AU away—and you somehow avoided being being incinerated, vaporized, and converted to some type of exotic plasma—even the flood of ghostly neutrinos would be dense enough to kill you.
New contributor
Synergy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You can't just cut and paste random copyrighted stuff on the internet.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
47 secs ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
exerpt from What If? by Randall Munroe
The phrase "lethal dose of neutrino radiation" is a weird one. I had to turn it over in my head a few times after I heard it.
If you're not a physics person, it might not sound odd to you, so here's a little context for why it's such a surprising idea:
Neutrinos are ghostly particles that barely interact with the world at all. Look at your hand—there are about a trillion neutrinos from the Sun passing through it every second.

OK, you can stop looking at your hand now.
The reason you don't notice the neutrino flood is that neutrinos hardly interact with ordinary matter at all. On average, out of that massive flood, only one neutrino will "hit" an atom in your body every few years.
In fact, neutrinos are so shadowy that the entire Earth is transparent to them; nearly all of the Sun's neutrino flood goes straight through it unaffected. To detect neutrinos, people build giant tanks filled with hundreds of tons of material in the hopes that they'll register the impact of a single solar neutrino.
This means that when a particle accelerator (which produces neutrinos) wants to send a neutrino beam to a detector somewhere else in the world, all it has to do is point the beam at the detector—even if it's on the other side of the Earth!

That's why the phrase "lethal dose of neutrino radiation" sounds weird—it mixes scales in an incongruous way. It's like the idiom "knock me over with a feather" or the phrase "football stadium filled to the brim with ants". If you have a math background, it's sort of like seeing the expression "ln(x)^e"—it's not that, taken literally, it doesn't make sense, but it's hard to imagine a situation where it would apply.(If you want to be mean to first-year calculus students, you can ask them to take the derivitave of ln(x)^e × dx. It looks like it would be "I" or something, but it's not.)
Similarly, it's so hard to get enough neutrinos to compel even a single one of them to interact with matter, making it hard to picture a scenario in which there'd be enough of them to affect you.
Supernovae provide that scenario. The physicist who mentioned this problem to me told me his rule of thumb for estimating supernova-related numbers: However big you think supernovae are, they're bigger than that.
Here's a question to give you a sense of scale:
Which of the following would be brighter, in terms of the amount of energy delivered to your retina:
A supernova, seen from as far away as the Sun is from the Earth, or
The detonation of a hydrogen bomb pressed against your eyeball?

Can you hurry up and set it off? This is heavy.
Applying the physicist rule of thumb suggests that the supernova is brighter. And indeed, it is ... by nine orders of magnitude.
That's why this is a neat question; supernovae are unimaginably huge and neutrinos are unimaginably insubstantial. At what point do these two unimaginable things cancel out to produce an effect on a human scale?
A paper by radiation expert Andrew Karam provides an answer. It explains that during certain supernovae, the collapse of a stellar core into a neutron star, 10 to the 57th neutrinos can be released (one for every proton in the star that collapses to become a neutron).
Karam calculates that the neutrino radiation dose at a distance of one parsec would be around half a nanosievert, or 1/500th the dose from eating a banana.
A fatal radiation dose is about 4 sieverts. Using the inverse-square law, we can calculate the radiation dose:
0.5 nanosieverts × (1 parsec/x)^2 = 5 sieverts
x = 0.00001118 parsecs=2.3 AU
2.3 AU is a little more than the distance between the Sun and Mars.
Core collapse supernovae happen to giant stars, so if you observed a supernova from that distance, you'd probably be inside the outer layers of the star that created it.

GRB 080391 was the most violent ever observed - especialy for the people who were floating next to it with surfboards.
The idea of neutrino radiation damage reinforces just how big supernovae are. If you observed a supernova from 1 AU away—and you somehow avoided being being incinerated, vaporized, and converted to some type of exotic plasma—even the flood of ghostly neutrinos would be dense enough to kill you.
New contributor
Synergy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You can't just cut and paste random copyrighted stuff on the internet.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
47 secs ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
exerpt from What If? by Randall Munroe
The phrase "lethal dose of neutrino radiation" is a weird one. I had to turn it over in my head a few times after I heard it.
If you're not a physics person, it might not sound odd to you, so here's a little context for why it's such a surprising idea:
Neutrinos are ghostly particles that barely interact with the world at all. Look at your hand—there are about a trillion neutrinos from the Sun passing through it every second.

OK, you can stop looking at your hand now.
The reason you don't notice the neutrino flood is that neutrinos hardly interact with ordinary matter at all. On average, out of that massive flood, only one neutrino will "hit" an atom in your body every few years.
In fact, neutrinos are so shadowy that the entire Earth is transparent to them; nearly all of the Sun's neutrino flood goes straight through it unaffected. To detect neutrinos, people build giant tanks filled with hundreds of tons of material in the hopes that they'll register the impact of a single solar neutrino.
This means that when a particle accelerator (which produces neutrinos) wants to send a neutrino beam to a detector somewhere else in the world, all it has to do is point the beam at the detector—even if it's on the other side of the Earth!

That's why the phrase "lethal dose of neutrino radiation" sounds weird—it mixes scales in an incongruous way. It's like the idiom "knock me over with a feather" or the phrase "football stadium filled to the brim with ants". If you have a math background, it's sort of like seeing the expression "ln(x)^e"—it's not that, taken literally, it doesn't make sense, but it's hard to imagine a situation where it would apply.(If you want to be mean to first-year calculus students, you can ask them to take the derivitave of ln(x)^e × dx. It looks like it would be "I" or something, but it's not.)
Similarly, it's so hard to get enough neutrinos to compel even a single one of them to interact with matter, making it hard to picture a scenario in which there'd be enough of them to affect you.
Supernovae provide that scenario. The physicist who mentioned this problem to me told me his rule of thumb for estimating supernova-related numbers: However big you think supernovae are, they're bigger than that.
Here's a question to give you a sense of scale:
Which of the following would be brighter, in terms of the amount of energy delivered to your retina:
A supernova, seen from as far away as the Sun is from the Earth, or
The detonation of a hydrogen bomb pressed against your eyeball?

Can you hurry up and set it off? This is heavy.
Applying the physicist rule of thumb suggests that the supernova is brighter. And indeed, it is ... by nine orders of magnitude.
That's why this is a neat question; supernovae are unimaginably huge and neutrinos are unimaginably insubstantial. At what point do these two unimaginable things cancel out to produce an effect on a human scale?
A paper by radiation expert Andrew Karam provides an answer. It explains that during certain supernovae, the collapse of a stellar core into a neutron star, 10 to the 57th neutrinos can be released (one for every proton in the star that collapses to become a neutron).
Karam calculates that the neutrino radiation dose at a distance of one parsec would be around half a nanosievert, or 1/500th the dose from eating a banana.
A fatal radiation dose is about 4 sieverts. Using the inverse-square law, we can calculate the radiation dose:
0.5 nanosieverts × (1 parsec/x)^2 = 5 sieverts
x = 0.00001118 parsecs=2.3 AU
2.3 AU is a little more than the distance between the Sun and Mars.
Core collapse supernovae happen to giant stars, so if you observed a supernova from that distance, you'd probably be inside the outer layers of the star that created it.

GRB 080391 was the most violent ever observed - especialy for the people who were floating next to it with surfboards.
The idea of neutrino radiation damage reinforces just how big supernovae are. If you observed a supernova from 1 AU away—and you somehow avoided being being incinerated, vaporized, and converted to some type of exotic plasma—even the flood of ghostly neutrinos would be dense enough to kill you.
New contributor
Synergy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
exerpt from What If? by Randall Munroe
The phrase "lethal dose of neutrino radiation" is a weird one. I had to turn it over in my head a few times after I heard it.
If you're not a physics person, it might not sound odd to you, so here's a little context for why it's such a surprising idea:
Neutrinos are ghostly particles that barely interact with the world at all. Look at your hand—there are about a trillion neutrinos from the Sun passing through it every second.

OK, you can stop looking at your hand now.
The reason you don't notice the neutrino flood is that neutrinos hardly interact with ordinary matter at all. On average, out of that massive flood, only one neutrino will "hit" an atom in your body every few years.
In fact, neutrinos are so shadowy that the entire Earth is transparent to them; nearly all of the Sun's neutrino flood goes straight through it unaffected. To detect neutrinos, people build giant tanks filled with hundreds of tons of material in the hopes that they'll register the impact of a single solar neutrino.
This means that when a particle accelerator (which produces neutrinos) wants to send a neutrino beam to a detector somewhere else in the world, all it has to do is point the beam at the detector—even if it's on the other side of the Earth!

That's why the phrase "lethal dose of neutrino radiation" sounds weird—it mixes scales in an incongruous way. It's like the idiom "knock me over with a feather" or the phrase "football stadium filled to the brim with ants". If you have a math background, it's sort of like seeing the expression "ln(x)^e"—it's not that, taken literally, it doesn't make sense, but it's hard to imagine a situation where it would apply.(If you want to be mean to first-year calculus students, you can ask them to take the derivitave of ln(x)^e × dx. It looks like it would be "I" or something, but it's not.)
Similarly, it's so hard to get enough neutrinos to compel even a single one of them to interact with matter, making it hard to picture a scenario in which there'd be enough of them to affect you.
Supernovae provide that scenario. The physicist who mentioned this problem to me told me his rule of thumb for estimating supernova-related numbers: However big you think supernovae are, they're bigger than that.
Here's a question to give you a sense of scale:
Which of the following would be brighter, in terms of the amount of energy delivered to your retina:
A supernova, seen from as far away as the Sun is from the Earth, or
The detonation of a hydrogen bomb pressed against your eyeball?

Can you hurry up and set it off? This is heavy.
Applying the physicist rule of thumb suggests that the supernova is brighter. And indeed, it is ... by nine orders of magnitude.
That's why this is a neat question; supernovae are unimaginably huge and neutrinos are unimaginably insubstantial. At what point do these two unimaginable things cancel out to produce an effect on a human scale?
A paper by radiation expert Andrew Karam provides an answer. It explains that during certain supernovae, the collapse of a stellar core into a neutron star, 10 to the 57th neutrinos can be released (one for every proton in the star that collapses to become a neutron).
Karam calculates that the neutrino radiation dose at a distance of one parsec would be around half a nanosievert, or 1/500th the dose from eating a banana.
A fatal radiation dose is about 4 sieverts. Using the inverse-square law, we can calculate the radiation dose:
0.5 nanosieverts × (1 parsec/x)^2 = 5 sieverts
x = 0.00001118 parsecs=2.3 AU
2.3 AU is a little more than the distance between the Sun and Mars.
Core collapse supernovae happen to giant stars, so if you observed a supernova from that distance, you'd probably be inside the outer layers of the star that created it.

GRB 080391 was the most violent ever observed - especialy for the people who were floating next to it with surfboards.
The idea of neutrino radiation damage reinforces just how big supernovae are. If you observed a supernova from 1 AU away—and you somehow avoided being being incinerated, vaporized, and converted to some type of exotic plasma—even the flood of ghostly neutrinos would be dense enough to kill you.
New contributor
Synergy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Synergy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 hours ago
SynergySynergy
492
492
New contributor
Synergy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Synergy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Synergy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
You can't just cut and paste random copyrighted stuff on the internet.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
47 secs ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can't just cut and paste random copyrighted stuff on the internet.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
47 secs ago
$begingroup$
You can't just cut and paste random copyrighted stuff on the internet.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
47 secs ago
$begingroup$
You can't just cut and paste random copyrighted stuff on the internet.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
47 secs ago
add a comment |
Questionator is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Questionator is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Questionator is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Questionator is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f456482%2flethal-dose-of-radiation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown