Jump to content

Talk:Soft radiation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

g/cm^2 ?

[edit]

Are those units correct? (It seems to me that g/cm^3 makes more sense) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.164.161 (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct, this is the normal convention. It is expressing the mass of material which radiation would have to pass through per square centimetre of surface. This is a true mass indication. g/cm3 is a measure of density and does not carry the information of the total depth and thereby the mass to penetrate. Dougsim (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Contradiction

[edit]

The article did say

"Soft radiation is energetic enough to penetrate 5 g·cm−2 of brass but not energetic enough to penetrate 167 g·cm−2 of lead[citation needed]. Thus soft radiation includes:

Which is saying that soft radiation cannot penetrate a large mass but has higher energy, which is contradictory.

Dougsim (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (2018) to ionizing radiation

[edit]

I suggest that this article, soft radiation, be merged to ionizing radiation. For the discussion, see Talk: Ionizing radiation#Merge (2018) from Ultrasoft radiation & soft radiation & hard radiation to Ionizing radiation -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]