Radiation

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by Bruno

So is sticking your hand in a fire, but it doesn't get kicked over into the radiation system. "All electromagnetic radiation" is not a category that GURPS cares to track as "radiation".

GURPS reserves the bare word "radiation" for things that the common person would recognize as radiation (mostly or entirely particle radiation - not sure if GURPS tracks very high frequency EM like X-Rays as radiation but I'm guessing it does).

Visible light and UV Lasers do not do tox damage with the radiation modifiers, nor burn damage with radiation modifiers, despite being damage from energetic electromagnetic radiation. Standing too close to a fire does not do radiation damage either, and hoo boy is that celular damage from infrared radiation. But we don't call it "irradiating", we call it "cooking".

Not the same thing. This isn't really even a GURPS-term-of-art problem here, but an English-language use.

Exactly. What GURPS (and most English speakers) call radiation is shorthand for ionizing radiation - radiation of a high enough energy and frequency (and hence low wavelength) that it can convert atoms and molecules into ions (giving an electron here and there enough energy to "hit escape velocity" more or less). Visible light, heat (like your own body heat), microwaves, radio waves are all forms of radiation, just not of the ionizing variety. All these kinds can do is heat things or make them reflect or emit light. We're all emiting radiation all the time, just by being alive and being above absolute zero. It's the ionizing radiation one needs to be concerned with, as this causes DNA damage which can lead to nastiness (most notably cancer).

Although there was once a general belief that there was no safe dose of ionizing radiation propagated by politically motivated science, it turns out that there are doses which are probably harmless, and it's even been seen in some animal models that mild exposure might even upregulate the body's self-repair processes (which is a good, healthy thing).

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

Although there was once a general belief that there was no safe dose of ionizing radiation propagated by politically motivated science, it turns out that there are doses which are probably harmless, and it's even been seen in some animal models that mild exposure might even upregulate the body's self-repair processes (which is a good, healthy thing).

That's a fairly serious misrepresentation. There's no credible evidence for radiation hormesis, the thing is that cancer risks are very difficult to measure (because so very many things cause it) and thus we don't know the risk of low doses. The linear-no-threshold model is the simplest model, it's conservative in terms of risks, it's plausible on a theoretical basis (mutation rate should be linear in rate of genetic damage, and unless cancer consists of two or more linked mutations, its rate should be linear in the mutation rate), and the available evidence does not rule it out.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It is, but not below the cancer dose, for which there isn't an accepted curve at low doses but is usually assumed to be linear no-threshold. Best I can find on that is along the lines of
GCRs with a basic hull amount to ~10 rem/year (not sure of the original source for 1/week, it might include other hazards).

To complicate matters along with other "all radiation isn't the same" issues, I've read serious concerns about the possibility that heavy ion radiation (including cosmic rays) is more biologically damaging than gamma.

"Ignore non-acute radiation damage". might be a defensible genre assunption but I'd never take it as reality without _very_ strong evidence. Optimism about the friendlyness of the universe is usually not warranted.

[lwcamp]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

To complicate matters along with other "all radiation isn't the same" issues, I've read serious concerns about the possibility that heavy ion radiation (including cosmic rays) is more biologically damaging than gamma.

You are absolutely correct, here. Neutrons are also more biologically damaging than the same dose of gamma. These effects are well known. You can easily account for this in GURPS by reading "rem" (which measures biological effect) for "rad" (which measures deposited energy density, or "dose").

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

"Ignore non-acute radiation damage". might be a defensible genre assunption but I'd never take it as reality without _very_ strong evidence. Optimism about the friendlyness of the universe is usually not warranted.

Again, you are absolutely correct. 10 rads of dose might not do anything to you in the next year, but it is a very real concern if you ever want to watch your grandkids grow up. Please, in real life, take radiation exposure guidelines seriously. Your health could depend on it (not to mention your job, and even the path of our collective energy future if certain activist groups start using your story as propaganda).

Luke

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by lwcamp

You are absolutely correct, here. Neutrons are also more biologically damaging than the same dose of gamma.

Neutrons technically aren't ionizing radiation and don't produce rads at all, at least directly (they do so indirectly by knocking around other atoms, but that also causes direct damage). That's one distinct benefit of reading 'rads' as 'rems'.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by lwcamp

...
Again, you are absolutely correct. 10 rads of dose might not do anything to you in the next year, but it is a very real concern if you ever want to watch your grandkids grow up. Please, in real life, take radiation exposure guidelines seriously. Your health could depend on it (not to mention your job, and even the path of our collective energy future if certain activist groups start using your story as propaganda).

Luke

That is the way of human psychology and poor risk assessments. Either something is of absolutely no concern, or O.M.G. it will kill your grandchildren from its mere mention.

I plan on living past 100, so radiation accumulation over time is quite important to me. :)

[lwcamp]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

That is the way of human psychology and poor risk assessments. Either something is of absolutely no concern, or O.M.G. it will kill your grandchildren from its mere mention.

A minor note - but I didn't mean to suggest the radiation would kill your grandchildren. Just that it would kill you before they matured.

Luke

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by lwcamp

A minor note - but I didn't mean to suggest the radiation would kill your grandchildren. Just that it would kill you before they matured.

Luke

I'm sorry if it wasn't obvious that I wasn't writing about anyone on these forums.
You most definitely fit in the sensible middle of the risks of radiation spectrum (no pun intended, but just this once. lol )

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by lwcamp

Please, in real life, take radiation exposure guidelines seriously.

Bah! Lax or non-existent safety procedures were good enough for Ernst Rutherford and Marie Curie! :)

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Bah! Lax or non-existent safety procedures were good enough for Ernst Rutherford and Marie Curie! :)

Even with the most stringent "hippy" guidelines, they would still be dead... so there.