Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-23-2011, 02:49 AM   #11
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyv, Ukraine
Default Re: Question about radiation damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyneras View Post
How is that worse? That thread boils down to "There are 2 types or radiation, the stuff that acts close enough to gammas rays to be lumped together without a problem, and everything else which is too weak to treat as radiation unless you eat or inhale it." If anything it means you can simplify stuff easily, as you don't need multiple scales for different radiation types.
You missed the point. GURPS measures radiation sources (e.g. innate attacks and reactor 'brightness') in Rads.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 03:03 AM   #12
Tyneras
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kentucky, USA
Default Re: Question about radiation damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
You missed the point. GURPS measures radiation sources (e.g. innate attacks and reactor 'brightness') in Rads.
It's a human centric measurement in a human centric game ('average' human stats cost zero points, after all). Either find some sort of scale (maybe normalize against HP or SM, as someone proposed) or rebuild it from the ground up to deal with amount absorbed.

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.
Tyneras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 12:21 PM   #13
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Question about radiation damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
You missed the point. GURPS measures radiation sources (e.g. innate attacks and reactor 'brightness') in Rads.
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').
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 05:22 PM   #14
Snargash Moonclaw
 
Snargash Moonclaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: PDX/Deep UrLand, The OtherWorld
Default 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
Snargash Moonclaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 06:00 PM   #15
lwcamp
 
lwcamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The plutonium rich regions of Washington State
Default Re: Question about radiation damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
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').
Neutrons produce ionization when they collide with other nuclei. This transfers some of the neutron's energy to the nucleus, and the fast moving nucleus leaves a trail of ionization. They also produce capture radiation - when a neutron gets absorbed by a nucleus, a gamma ray comes off which can cause ionization. There is also activation, where an absorbed neutron results in an unstable nucleus that decays at a later time.

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
lwcamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
radiation, rads

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.