How much radiation damage happens to us from muons decaying inside us and emitting beta particles?

[repoman]

All the muons that come screaming down to earth from their production high in the atmosphere occasionally decay releasing neutrinos and an electron. I am seeing something like 50 MeV electrons emitted from at rest muons, but it has got to be a lot more energy from muons showering down from cosmic ray collision debris.

I have spent a very little amount of time on this yet, so I thought I would just ask if anyone here knows about this? Also, is this one of the largest radiation damages we face or is it trivial?

Also, what disruptions do these high velocity muons just passing through us cause even if they don't decay?

 

[bilby]

All the muons that come screaming down to earth from their production high in the atmosphere occasionally decay releasing neutrinos and an electron. I am seeing something like 50 MeV electrons emitted from at rest muons, but it has got to be a lot more energy from muons showering down from cosmic ray collision debris.

I have spent a very little amount of time on this yet, so I thought I would just ask if anyone here knows about this? Also, is this one of the largest radiation damages we face or is it trivial?

Also, what disruptions do these high velocity muons just passing through us cause even if they don't decay?

It's trivial.

Ionising radiation is only harmful if/when it ionises something. Radiation passing straight through does nothing.

High energy implies a lot of damage, per intra-corporeal decay (or collision). But decay events are very rare, because the time the particles take to pass through is so short. And the collisions tend to produce ionisation tracks of lower total energy than intra-corporeal decays of any kind.

By far the most damage from ionising radiation in most people is from 'ordinary' decay events of radioisotopes in the body - Mostly Potassium 40 and Tritium (Hydrogen 3) beta decay, and Sodium 22 positron decay. These isotopes are easily the most common radioisotopes in the body.

Cosmic rays do add a bit of damage, for people at high altitudes in particular.

But the bio-molecular damage due to all kinds of ionising radiation in people exposed to only background radiation is dwarfed by the damage due to oxygen and oxidising species (free radicals).

Human cells have evolved to handle this oxygen damage, and the lesser damage from background radiation. Indeed the latest research suggests that there's a certain minimum amount of such damage that is required for optimum outcomes - this is known as hormesis.

It seems that our systems are unable to handle insufficient levels of damage as effectively as they can handle 'normal' levels. Although obviously high levels of damage can overwhelm the cell's defences.

 

[repoman]

Yes, but I am looking for the numbers on it, so it can then be show to not be a major contributor, which I suspected even before running the numbers.

I see that they have an average energy of 4 GeV and flux of 1 per cm^2 a minute. Tomorrow I will try and figure out what this might means as as how many muons a day will pass through 60 kg person and how many of those would decay. Order of magnitude estimate of course.

What I don't know is how much damage the decay products of the 4 GeV muon will do, again on a very rough estimate.

 

[steve_bank]

The damage that particle radiation, or ionizing, does is for one thing disrupting DNA and cell structure. A little publicized fact is that commercial pilots and crew that fly at high alludes have a higher risk for radiation exposure.

https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/air_travel.html

There is natural radioactive decay in the soil and some rocks, especialy granit. If you live in a risk area you can buy radon s detectors.

Back around 1980 there was a problem with dynamic memory. Bits were changing with no known cause. It was found that radioactive elements in the ceramic package was causing it.

There are numbers for food and air intake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

Food and water[edit]

Two of the essential elements that make up the human body, namely potassium and carbon, have radioactive isotopes that add significantly to our background radiation dose. An average human contains about 17 milligrams of potassium-40 (40K) and about 24 nanograms (10−8 g) of carbon-14 (14C),[citation needed] (half-life 5,730 years). Excluding internal contamination by external radioactive material, these two are largest components of internal radiation exposure from biologically functional components of the human body. About 4,000 nuclei of 40K per second[16] decay per second, and a similar number of 14C. The energy of beta particles produced by 40K is about 10 times that from the beta particles from 14C decay.

14C is present in the human body at a level of about 3700 Bq (0.1 μCi) with a biological half-life of 40 days.[17] This means there are about 3700 beta particles per second produced by the decay of 14C. However, a 14C atom is in the genetic information of about half the cells, while potassium is not a component of DNA. The decay of a 14C atom inside DNA in one person happens about 50 times per second, changing a carbon atom to one of nitrogen.[18]

The global average internal dose from radionuclides other than radon and its decay products is 0.29 mSv/a, of which 0.17 mSv/a comes from 40K, 0.12 mSv/a comes from the uranium and thorium series, and 12 μSv/a comes from 14C.[2]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation#Nuclear_effects

Background radiation[edit]

Main article: Background radiation

Background radiation comes from both natural and man-made sources.

The global average exposure of humans to ionizing radiation is about 3 mSv (0.3 rem) per year, 80% of which comes from nature. The remaining 20% results from exposure to man-made radiation sources, primarily from medical imaging. Average man-made exposure is much higher in developed countries, mostly due to CT scans and nuclear medicine.

Natural background radiation comes from five primary sources: cosmic radiation, solar radiation, external terrestrial sources, radiation in the human body, and radon.

The background rate for natural radiation varies considerably with location, being as low as 1.5 mSv/a (1.5 mSv per year) in some areas and over 100 mSv/a in others. The highest level of purely natural radiation recorded on the Earth's surface is 90 µGy/h (0.8 Gy/a) on a Brazilian black beach composed of monazite.[22] The highest background radiation in an inhabited area is found in Ramsar, primarily due to naturally radioactive limestone used as a building material. Some 2000 of the most exposed residents receive an average radiation dose of 10 mGy per year, (1 rad/yr) ten times more than the ICRP recommended limit for exposure to the public from artificial sources.[23] Record levels were found in a house where the effective radiation dose due to external radiation was 135 mSv/a, (13.5 rem/yr) and the committed dose from radon was 640 mSv/a (64.0 rem/yr).[24] This unique case is over 200 times higher than the world average background radiation. Despite the high levels of background radiation that the residents of Ramsar receive there is no compelling evidence that they experience a greater health risks. The ICRP recommendations are conservative limits and may represent an over representation of the actual health risk. Generally radiation safety organization recommend the most conservative limits assuming it is best to err on the side of caution. This level of caution is appropriate but should not be used to create fear about background radiation danger. Radiation danger from background radiation may be a serious threat but is more likely a small overall risk compared to all other factors in the environment.

Effects of ionizing radiation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK12344/

 

[Speakpigeon]

All the muons that come screaming down to earth from their production high in the atmosphere occasionally decay releasing neutrinos and an electron. I am seeing something like 50 MeV electrons emitted from at rest muons, but it has got to be a lot more energy from muons showering down from cosmic ray collision debris.

I have spent a very little amount of time on this yet, so I thought I would just ask if anyone here knows about this? Also, is this one of the largest radiation damages we face or is it trivial?

Also, what disruptions do these high velocity muons just passing through us cause even if they don't decay?

That has to explain why I feel like I'm decaying a little bit more every ten years.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Human cells have evolved to handle this oxygen damage, and the lesser damage from background radiation. Indeed the latest research suggests that there's a certain minimum amount of such damage that is required for optimum outcomes - this is known as hormesis.

It seems that our systems are unable to handle insufficient levels of damage as effectively as they can handle 'normal' levels. Although obviously high levels of damage can overwhelm the cell's defences.

I've learnt a new word...

Hormesis in Daily Life
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2248601/

Several articles in this special issue of ARR describe evidence supporting hormesis as a mechanism responsible for the health benefits of a variety of lifestyle and environmental factors. This is best documented for exercise which increases the resistance of musculoskeletal and cardiovascular systems to injury and disease (Kojda and Hambrecht, 2005). But moderate regular exercise also benefits other tissues including the nervous system (Gomezi-Pinilla, 2007) and digestive system (Bi and Triadafilopoulos, 2003). Zsolt Radak and Fernando Gomez-Pinilla cover the current state of knowledge of the hormetic effects exercise on muscle and nerve cells (Gomez-Pinilla, 2007; Radak, 2007). The public in industrialized countries is bombarded with a bewildering array of information on the effects of dietary factors on health (Satia-About a et al., 2002). However, the only well-established means of improving health through diet is maintaining a relatively low caloric intake, as described previously (Masoro, 2005; Martin et al., 2006). An article in this issue of ARR describes the involvement of hormesis mechanisms in the beneficial effects of dietary energy restriction on health, and also highlights emerging evidence supporting a role for hormesis in the health-promoting actions of several widely-studied chemicals in fruits and vegetables (Mattson, 2007).

Accumulating evidence suggests that the reason that regular engagement in intellectual activities is beneficial for the brain (Scarmeas and Stern, 2003) is that it activates hormetic pathways in neurons. Similar to the changes that occur in muscle cells during exercise, neurons engaged in challenging activities are subjected to repeated bouts of calcium influx, free radical production and moderate (aerobic) energetic stress (Mattson et al., 2002; Serrano and Klann, 2004). As a result, transcription factors such as cyclic AMP response element binding protein (CREB) and nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) are activated (Carlezon et al., 2005; Mattson and Meffert, 2006), and the expression of several major classes of cytoprotective proteins is increased including neurotrophic factors, heat-shock proteins and others (Lazarov et al., 2005). As with other organ systems, exposure of the cells in the nervous system to mild and transient bouts of stress may increase their resistance to the adversities of ageing. Suresh Rattan reviews the role of hormesis mechanisms in modifying the ageing process in this issue of ARR (Rattan, 2007).

EB

 

[repoman]

All the muons that come screaming down to earth from their production high in the atmosphere occasionally decay releasing neutrinos and an electron. I am seeing something like 50 MeV electrons emitted from at rest muons, but it has got to be a lot more energy from muons showering down from cosmic ray collision debris.

I have spent a very little amount of time on this yet, so I thought I would just ask if anyone here knows about this? Also, is this one of the largest radiation damages we face or is it trivial?

Also, what disruptions do these high velocity muons just passing through us cause even if they don't decay?

That has to explain why I feel like I'm decaying a little bit more every ten years.
EB

Picture of the angry guy with tangled Christmas lights saying "I bet the muons did this!"

 

[Gun Nut]

What about Radon? There are those that say the effects of Radon are potentially serious, and those that dismiss the risk entirely. Radon is a radioactive gas that gets into people's basements as it escapes out of the ground. the alleged risk is that inhaling the gas exposes the lungs to radiation.

Is it true? Is it the same as other things inside the body radiating out, or is it a real risk. Never found a reliable source, apart from the EPA saying Radon bad above a concentration of 4.0 <units?>

 

[bilby]

What about Radon? There are those that say the effects of Radon are potentially serious, and those that dismiss the risk entirely. Radon is a radioactive gas that gets into people's basements as it escapes out of the ground. the alleged risk is that inhaling the gas exposes the lungs to radiation.

Is it true? Is it the same as other things inside the body radiating out, or is it a real risk. Never found a reliable source, apart from the EPA saying Radon bad above a concentration of 4.0 <units?>

Radon doesn't appear to be a very large hazard; People who live with moderate to high radon exposures - for example anyone who sleeps in a basement flat in an area where buildings are constructed from granite - don't have measurably higher risks for lung cancers, although there is some evidence that the combination of heavy smoking and high radon exposure may increase such cancer incidence.

Miners who work for long periods in very high radon concentrations do present more lung cancer than the general population, but even in that cohort, smoking tobacco is a far greater risk factor, and again radon seems to be more important as a risk multiplier for smokers than it is as a risk factor in its own right.

The recommended exposure levels for ionising radiation (including from radon) are generally formulated using the discredited LNT dose/response hypothesis, which wildly overestimates risks at low exposures. As little data was available in the '50s and '60s regarding low doses, the various authorities simply assumed a linear response - so if 1Sv kills 50% of those exposed, the assumption is that 0.1Sv will kill 5%, 0.01Sv will kill 0.5%, and so on.

To show how crazy this is, we can apply it to another area of risk - If a fall of ten metres (~30 feet) kills half of those who suffer one, then by the LNT hypothesis, 5% of people who fall one metre will die; As will 0.5% of people who fall 100mm (~4 inches). We can see that this implies that walking down even a single flight of stairs is therefore almost certainly lethal for most people. It's therefore vital that all staircases be banned in the interests of public safety.