Talk:Radium dial

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Time High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Occupational Safety and Health Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

This page says that production peaked during the 1900 decade, but another (linked to it) says that the paint was invented in 1908. Some cross-checking seems warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.124.61.215 (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "One estimate of radiation exposure caused by wearing a watch painted with radium is 10-1000 millirads." is confusing: millirad is a dose, not a dose rate (dose per time). Thus, one would have to specify how long one must wear such a watch in order to absorb this dose. Andre.holzner (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement?

"radium dials have largely been replaced by tritium based light sources." What about phosphorescent light sources too? most normal watches only have phosphorescent glow, tritium watch faces don't seem common at all, and most other consumer products with glow is phosphorescence not radioluminescence, so it's surly just as much a replacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.195.46 (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree. I revised the article to reflect this. Thanks! Scientific29 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of source

I had to remove this from article due to ambiguity. See my edit summary. I like to saw logs! (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One estimate of radiation exposure caused by wearing a watch painted with radium is 10-1000 millirads.^[1]

^ Frigierio, Norman (1967). Your Body and Radiation. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

I think watches are rather safe.

The so-called dangers of watch dials is contradictory and confusing. Paper stops the radiation, but steel and glass watches do not? Radium watch hands are $12/set online.

Both of these clauses are meaningless: "Radium dials have been shown to have dose rates near the face of in excess of 10 µSv / hr, which would deliver a dose equivalent to one days background exposure in around 20 minutes." Would that be in high-elevation Denver Co, or sea level? ...etc... "Near?" Needs expanding, clarification. None of the "dangers" are sourced. It all seems to be nuke-hysteria related, except the manufacturing-in-ignorance and other ingestion dangers for which it was "banned."

I found these jargon-rich, thus useless facts elsewhere:

NCRP Report 56 indicated that the estimated average dose equivalent to the gonads of an individual wearing a radium-containing watch was approximately 3 mrem per year. The estimated dose from a watch containing 4.5 uCi of radium, a very large amount, would be 310 mrem per year to the gonads. Note that the associated risk here is much lower than if the dose had been the same over the entire body.

In the previously mentioned study of pocket watches by the National Center for Radiological Health, measurements using TLDs and a human phantom indicated that the annual dose to the gonads was 60 mrem (assuming that the watch was worn 16 hours per day).

If you are going to assert dangers, then those terms need to be explained in plain language and concepts. Like compare to bone x-rays or gain in elevation, or living in granite mountains with a background radiation dose over 8 mSv per year. There has been too much hysteria and baseless fear mongering for people to trust undefined jargon and unsourced or vague claims. IOW, I think this topic requires more certitude/veracity than usual.--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:4C96:1655:66E8:C150 (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Just Saying...[reply]

[1] Frigierio, Norman (1967). Your Body and Radiation. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

[1]