Talk:Ionizing radiation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Know the spectrum 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Relativistic? 

message: 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.  --ChetvornoTALK 21:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Radiation shielding 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Manufacturers of [[gas-filled tube]]s in the 1960s recommended ordinary 2-watts incandescent light bulbs for preionisation of the neon inside their products 

message: :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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: . Thank you Girth Summit for taking a stab at rewording this sentence, but I am still confused. Don't all types of electromagnetic waves (gamma, xray, ultraviolet, microwave, visible, etc.) normally travel at the speed of light in vacuum, and extremely close to the speed of light in gases/atmosphere? If that's true, then the "greater than 1%" part may not be the most accurate way to say this. My impression is that these waves, unless slowed down or stopped by a solid material, are usually travelling at like 99.99%-100% of the speed of light. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ionizing radiation includes both electromagnetic waves as well as high speed particles with mass. Electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light. Alpha and beta particles are not electromagnetic waves. They do travel at high speeds (above 1% the speed of light), but nowhere near the full speed of light. Kardoen (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  1% of the speed of light 

message: In the section describing neutrons, this article states "[n]eutrons have a neutral electrical charge often misunderstood as zero electrical charge"; however, in the article on neutrons themselves, it states "[t]he total electric charge of the neutron is 0 e." The claim that the electrical charge is "often misunderstood as zero" does not have any citations, so I'm unsure of where this claim came from. However, as it is in direct contradiction with another article that DOES source its claim that the charge on the neutron is zero, I believe this article should be edited to remove the "often misunderstood" language, unless it can be properly sourced. (Edited to add: I have added the "more citations needed" template to the section, as currently there is only one inline citation in the whole section.) Lumberjane Lilly (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in neutron description