Talk:Ionizing radiation

Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson

Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson has been referenced as a noted figure in this field and more information is needed to improve an article about him. Orrerysky (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Understanding which part of the opening sentence applies to which other part (from a non-scientist)

The opening sentence currently is:

Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is composed of subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at relativistic speeds, or electromagnetic waves on the short wavelength end of the electromagnetic spectrum that carry enough energy to liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them.

The problem is that, due to the grammatical rule of apposition, I can't tell which part of this sentence modifies or doesn't modify other parts. So in the end, I can't tell how many types of ionizing radiation there are. (WP states: "Apposition is a grammatical construction in which two elements, normally noun phrases, are placed side by side, with one element serving to define or modify the other.")

If one of the following rewrites is correct, please say so here and then change it in the article. If not, please discuss. Sorry that all I can do is this, but my chronic illness probably won't let me return here, so thanks in advance. My edits are in italics, and the numbers are there to help discussion, of course.

1. Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is composed of either subatomic particles (ions or atoms moving at relativistic speeds) or electromagnetic waves on the short wavelength end of the electromagnetic spectrum (those waves that carry enough energy to liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them).

2. Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is composed of one of following three forms: subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at relativistic speeds, or electromagnetic waves on the short wavelength end of the electromagnetic spectrum. These three forms carry enough energy to liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them.

In 2, I couldn't in my ignorance come up with a better collective term than "forms" so please provide a term that shows the commonality among them.

3. Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is composed of one of following three forms: subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at relativistic speeds, or electromagnetic waves on the short wavelength end of the electromagnetic spectrum (those waves that carry enough energy to liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them).

3 is the same as 2 except that "carry enough energy..." applies only to the last form, not to all three forms.

I really hope this helps! If it does, please let me know so I can get more of those happy endorphins in my system. Heh! --Geekdiva (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The opening sentence should definitely be made clearer and simpler! (2) is the correct interpretation, but it should probably be simplified further. Something like:

Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is radiation composed of particles or electromagnetic waves that carry enough kinetic energy to liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them.

To me at least, this makes it clear enough that "carry enough" modifies both. But I guess we can simplify it even further:

Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is radiation that carries enough energy to liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them.

If we merge this with the current opening paragraph:

Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is radiation that carries enough energy to liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them. Ionizing radiation comprises subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at relativistic speeds, and electromagnetic waves on the short wavelength end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Gamma rays, X-rays, and the upper vacuum ultraviolet part of the ultraviolet spectrum are ionizing, whereas the lower ultraviolet, visible light (including laser light), infrared, microwaves, and radio waves are considered non-ionizing radiation.

This should be both accessible and accurate enough for the lead. Kolbasz (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This looks good. Let's do it!

When I came to this lead about a month ago it had two contradictory definitions that had been there for a while, so its good now to see some critical discussion.

I will change it now.Dougsim (talk)

Improve picture quality

The picture quality is very low. Can someone improve it's resolution? Sayamsethi (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you please specify which picture you mean? Kolbasz (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Know the spectrum

Microwaves and radio waves and infrared are not in the Ultraviolet spectrum! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C001:FFB0:A1CA:4003:9969:E722 (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the lede, but I'll re-write it so it cannot be misunderstood. SBHarris 00:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Relativistic?

The article now says:

Any charged massive particle can ionize atoms directly by fundamental interaction through the Coulomb force if it carries sufficient kinetic energy. This includes atomic nuclei, electrons, muons, charged pions, protons, and energetic charged nuclei stripped of their electrons, all of which must be moving at relativistic speeds to reach the required kinetic energy.

This is certainly not true! Typical 5 MeV alphas are moving about 5% c, which certainly is not "relativistic." An electron reaches 33 eV, which is certainly enough to ionize, at only about 1.1% of the speed of light. Again not relativistic. SBHarris 00:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Units?

This article desperately needs an explanation of the units of radiation dosage, to give general readers the tools to judge whether a dose of radiation is hazardous or not. This article used to have a "Units" section which clearly explained the relation between units of "exposure" (C/kg), absorbed dose (gray and rad), and equivalent dose (Sievert and rem). Now all it has is a "Measurement" section with an unsourced table listing a welter of units with no definitions or explanation of the relations between them, and an uninformative poster. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Radiation shielding

Air or skin can be sufficient to substantially attenuate low-energy alpha and beta radiation. Barriers of lead, concrete, or water give effective protection from more energetic particles such as gamma rays and neutrons.

The energy of the particles is not the main source for the differences in penetration of matter. On top of that, it is for example not generally true, that alpha particles are less energetic than gamma rays. If I remember correctly, the opposite is actually true. I would suggest to change it to something like:

Air or skin can be sufficient to substantially attenuate alpha and beta radiation. Barriers of lead, concrete, or water are often used to give effective protection from more penetrating particles such as gamma rays and neutrons. 2001:67C:10EC:52C3:8000:0:0:8E0 (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ionizing radiation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121116084754/http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP+Publication+103 to http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP+Publication+103

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Manufacturers of gas-filled tubes in the 1960s recommended ordinary 2-watts incandescent light bulbs for preionisation of the neon inside their products

Here on page 2, for example, and even the UV-A-emission of non-halogen bulbs run at their rated voltage is negligible. 85.244.68.79 (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge (2018) from Ultrasoft radiation & soft radiation & hard radiation to Ionizing radiation

I suggest that

• Ultrasoft radiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Soft radiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hard radiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

be merged here, into Ionizing radiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

As they currently exist, they are dicdefs suitable to be copied to Wiktionary (wikt:hard radiation; wikt:soft radiation; wikt:ultrasoft radiation). Copying/creating them on Wiktionary, and redirecting the terms here, with a short description of the terms here, would be all that would be needed to address the subjects. As they are very short stubs and are types of ionizing radiation, there doesn't seem to be a need for three separate articles apart from this fourth article. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

please voice your opinion on the merger here:

Merge: It won't hurt and transforms the stubs into helpful information for an already available article. --MaoGo (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Merge, as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Merge. I haven't heard of these terms before, but from what I can read on their respective wiki-pages, I agree that they belong in this article. In particular because they are defined in relation to their ionizing potential. RhinoMind (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Merge I'd question whether these terms are perhaps only used with X-rays, so maybe they should ultimately be moved to X-ray, but that can be decided later by someone who (unlike me) knows about it. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)