Lethal dose of Radiation?












2












$begingroup$


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?










share|cite|improve this question









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.







$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    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?










    share|cite|improve this question









    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.







    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      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?










      share|cite|improve this question









      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






      share|cite|improve this question









      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.











      share|cite|improve this question









      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.









      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      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.






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          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.



          enter image description here



          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!



          enter image description here



          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?



          enter image description here



          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.



          enter image description here



          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer








          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











          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.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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









          4












          $begingroup$

          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.



          enter image description here



          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!



          enter image description here



          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?



          enter image description here



          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.



          enter image description here



          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer








          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
















          4












          $begingroup$

          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.



          enter image description here



          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!



          enter image description here



          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?



          enter image description here



          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.



          enter image description here



          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer








          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














          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          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.



          enter image description here



          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!



          enter image description here



          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?



          enter image description here



          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.



          enter image description here



          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer








          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.



          enter image description here



          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!



          enter image description here



          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?



          enter image description here



          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.



          enter image description here



          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.







          share|cite|improve this answer








          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.









          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer






          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


















          • $begingroup$
            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










          Questionator is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          Histoire des bourses de valeurs

          Why is there Russian traffic in my log files?

          Rename multiple files to decrement number in file name?