12-23-2011, 02:49 AM | #11 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Question about radiation damage
Quote:
|
|
12-23-2011, 03:03 AM | #12 | |
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kentucky, USA
|
Re: Question about radiation damage
Quote:
I'd love to read whatever you come up with, might even use it, but radiation is a rare enough hazard that I have to re-read the section on it every time it comes up. |
|
12-23-2011, 12:21 PM | #13 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Question about radiation damage
That's fairly nonsensical to start with; presumably it means 'rads from a typical exposure' (there's also the problem that neutrons, while they can be treated like gamma rays for damage purposes, actually produce zero rads; they aren't ionizing radiation. This is one reason I choose to assume that 'rads' really means 'rems').
|
12-23-2011, 05:22 PM | #14 |
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: PDX/Deep UrLand, The OtherWorld
|
Re: Question about radiation damage
Back in the latter half of the 80's when I served as a (US Army) Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare Specialist (MOS 54B, previously 54E) the operational exposure guidelines set the limit at 90 rad - which was considered safe. Note that this is external exposure - crossing a dusty contaminated area without air filtration, ingesting food or water containing radiation emitters of any form (alpha, beta, or gamma) etc. is highly dangerous (if not deadly) at any level. Even alpha particles (helium atom nuclei), while too heavy to penetrate the epidermis, once inside your body even in small amounts can kill you.
N.B., the guidelines were concerned with (short term) operational effectiveness, i.e., to ensure that soldiers could continue to perform their missions unhindered by the effects of radiation until the end of the war. Long-term effects of exposure (to any NBC contaminant) beyond that time frame have always been considered irrelevant.
__________________
Have Fun, Play Well, Amergin O'Kai _____________________________________ I read banned minds. I am not Fallen; That was a Power Dive! Last edited by Snargash Moonclaw; 12-23-2011 at 05:27 PM. Reason: addendum |
12-23-2011, 06:00 PM | #15 | |
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The plutonium rich regions of Washington State
|
Re: Question about radiation damage
Quote:
Of these, the nuclear recoil is likely the largest health threat, and is why neutrons have a fairly high relative biological effectiveness. For GURPS modeling, there is the annoying problem that stuff that stops gamma rays is not very effective against neutrons, and stuff that stops neutrons is not very effective against gamma rays. Thus, a PF of 10 against gammas might not get you anything against neutrons, and vice versa. Luke |
|
Tags |
radiation, rads |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|