Radiation and zombies

[Faran Brigo]

It's been said that since radiation mainly causes cancer, it would be useless against zombies since they don't have live cells and thus can't develop tumors. I disagree. Yes, lethal doses of radiation in humans usually cause death through tumors but that's not the only way radiation causes damage.

Radiation pulses are used to sterilize materials and even some foods. Higher energy bursts of gamma radiation are already used to inactivate/denature viruses, go higher and cell walls are destroyed and on the highest end (unpractical though) it causes damage to concrete and steel over time.

Gamma radiation also has a huge advantage, it's highly penetrating. In theory, a "projector" of sorts could be used to clear buildings without the need to step in them (though the radiation might cause some materials to become radioactive).

[Senecal]

Hmmmm tricky. Could cause cellular degeneration sure, but more likely, would sterilize the corpse so "helpful" decomposers would be killed/inactivated, in effect lengthening the "life" of Zed.

[Faran Brigo]

True, but I was thinking if what is causing them to rise is a microbe, then it would also destroy it along with the decomp organisms.

[Trebek]

Possible, but you'd have to get most of whatever microbe was causing the infection, and even then you're talking about extremely high doses of radiation. I would think it would pose a greater threat to humans than the zeds.

[Faran Brigo]

How high would these dosages of radiation be?

[ashley]

Hmmm, good idea in theory but severely flawed by the fact that it'd be too dangerous for the living.

[RockJock]

Radiation, being the degree of energy put out by a parent turning to daughter isotope can cause great deals of heat and in addition to causing sterilization, it can cause things to decompose quicker as well as extreme heat shears things apart. (There's a connection of the two of heat / energy in put into a biological or formerly organism.)

But over all it'd seem to be hit or miss. But I'm afraid the only real use there'd be out of it would be making zed's mildly radioactive and using that as an early warning.

[mattdettorre123]

Uh tumors are a long term symptom of low dose radiation, they develop after years of certain types of radiation. So let's stop and look at what radiation is. Radiation is caused by radio active substances, anything radio active is basically unstable atoms, when things are radio active they shoot off stray particles that penetrate the cells of your body, and basically tears them apart. So when you are hit with oh say a nuke, the radiation is so high you wont have enough time to develop tumors. Your liver, kidneys and other organs will fail before you get a tumor.

So radiation would help zombies by destroying all the bacteria on them and preventing them from rotting away. So you will have long lasting clean zombies

[mattifikation]

The point is, it would also destroy the virus that reanimated them. In addition, maybe you've forgotten this, but brains are made of cells also.

[Screwballgunnut]

The point is, it might could destroy the virus that reanimated them.

Fixed that for you. As there hasn't been an acknowledged outbreak for us to test this theory, we don't know what might or might not work.

Besides that, the focused radiation zombie blaster is still just an idea in the back of Faran's mind. Couple that with the fact that even an Xray machine (hospital use) is large enough that you have to have 2 or 3 ppl to move it, and a quality power supply, it doesn't seem like a practical battle weapon, or am I comparing apples to oranges, as I don't know much about radiation guns

[ashley]

In addition, maybe you've forgotten this, but brains are made of cells also.

That's freakin hilarious. Almost made me spit out my coffee. :)

[Faran Brigo]

Fixed that for you. As there hasn't been an acknowledged outbreak for us to test this theory, we don't know what might or might not work.

Well not exactly. Enough radiation causes spalling in building materials and transmutes elements (of course that much radiation is unwieldy, any device of that magnitude would take massive amounts of shielding), so it's not a matter of whether or not radiation will kill a microbe (IF that's what rises zombies, this is no sure bet) but rather how much radiation it would take, and doing a comparative cost/benefit overview.

True, it's just an idea on my mind. The microbe (if it's a microbe) could be so resistant to radiation that the high doses would make shielding impractical for a mobile weapon. In that case, radiation could very well work as a standard area denial weapon, a sort of silent mine that lasts years and takes minimal effort and resources to set up.

An Xray machine uses power to generate Xrays, so yes that would be quite impractical. I was thinking about a simple gamma projector with a dense obturator (imagine a cathode ray tube like the ones used in TVs, but with a thick layer of lead all around the screen instead of the usual material) fillled with cobalt-60 mounted on a vehicle. Cobalt-60 is an intense gamma emitter used in medicine with a half life of 5.27 years, that's 46,165 hours of continous killing power without reloads or electricity (it's not instant death though, so that takes some of the edge off it) and without the need for bulky cooling equipment.

[mattifikation]

If it works, it'd make a cool gadget on top of a supply raid vehicle.

[Faran Brigo]

Yup. IF it works. It still wouldn't be easy to make though, it'd require substancial resources (mostly the making of the projector itself) and expertise to build one safely, and like I said before, for all we know the "virus" could be an extremophillic, radiation resistant microbe, which means it would be so tolerant of radiation the doses necesary to destroy it (at range and through walls mind you) could be prohibitive in terms of the materials (both isotopes and shielding) required.

If I may say so, even considering the difficulty of making one it wouldn't be just "cool", it would be absolutely devastating, and it would make clearing cities A LOT easier. You would need zed tissue (and isotope) samples to see how much radiation the pathogen can tolerate before being destroyed. Any body part would do, but I'm thinking it's best to take a head and break off the jaw just to be safe.

[Trebek]

How high would these dosages of radiation be?

You were talking of using Gamma to penetrate buildings. even in a concentrated projection, that's hi-level stuff. In order to get through a building, and skin, and be sufficient to wipe out a body wide infection blind, it would have to be pretty serious.

Unless I misunderstood you.

[Screwballgunnut]

An Xray machine uses power to generate Xrays, so yes that would be quite impractical. I was thinking about a simple gamma projector with a dense obturator (imagine a cathode ray tube like the ones used in TVs, but with a thick layer of lead all around the screen instead of the usual material) fillled with cobalt-60 mounted on a vehicle. Cobalt-60 is an intense gamma emitter used in medicine with a half life of 5.27 years, that's 46,165 hours of continous killing power without reloads or electricity (it's not instant death though, so that takes some of the edge off it) and without the need for bulky cooling equipment.

Very cool idea. As I said, I don't know much about radiation guns. How hard is it to get cobalt-60? How much would it take to emit enough gammas to be used as a weapon?

Its been a while since I took chemistry, but isn't a half-life the amount of time it takes a radioactive compound to break down to where there is only 1/2 as much of it as there was when you started? Or am I confusing scientific concepts with random internet junk I've heard over the years?

[Faran Brigo]

Cobalt-60 is used in medicine, so I suppose you'd find it in radiotherapy machines in hospitals with an oncology ward. How much gamma? depends on the tolerance of the thing you're trying to kill obviously, so I don't really know, again, you'd need tissue samples.

But considering the idea here is for the radiation to go through walls yes, it would likely be substancial. How much exactly? I don't know. I could do the math, but, I honestly don't feel like doing all that work just for the purposes of this discussion :p

Still, again, it'd be an awesome weapon, BUT it won't be something you can improvise. Radiation is pretty dangerous stuff. Like I said before, if you're talking about improv, it would be easier to take canisters of the stuff from hospital machinery and use it as permanent landmines. Leave a few in a city and they'll keep killing zeds for years, or leave a few around your perimeter outside your walls and as long as they stay around your walls, the radiation will keep destroying their brain or the virus.

[Darkness]

"Does Radiation need living cells to feed on? How does it damage the body? I know it's on a celluar level, but what exactly does it do?" :think:

[Dark Gale]

"Does Radiation need living cells to feed on? How does it damage the body? I know it's on a celluar level, but what exactly does it do?" :think:

Well, different types of radiation are able to do different things. Most types of radiation can be deadly though, and as far as I know, it needs living cells of it to actually be able to do anything (Like mutate if that's what you're thinking)

[Darkness]

Well, different types of radiation are able to do different things. Most types of radiation can be deadly though, and as far as I know, it needs living cells of it to actually be able to do anything (Like mutate if that's what you're thinking)

"Nah, I was thinking that, even if it has a deadly effect on living flesh, what effect would it have on dead tissue? What exactly is it's celluar damage, and how does it damage the cells?"

[Dark Gale]

"Nah, I was thinking that, even if it has a deadly effect on living flesh, what effect would it have on dead tissue? What exactly is it's celluar damage, and how does it damage the cells?"

Biological Effects of Radiation

We tend to think of biological effects of radiation in terms of their effect on living cells. For low levels of radiation exposure, the biological effects are so small they may not be detected. The body has repair mechanisms against damage induced by radiation as well as by chemical carcinogens. Consequently, biological effects of radiation on living cells may result in three outcomes: (1) injured or damaged cells repair themselves, resulting in no residual damage; (2) cells die, much like millions of body cells do every day, being replaced through normal biological processes; or (3) cells incorrectly repair themselves resulting in a biophysical change.
The associations between radiation exposure and the development of cancer are mostly based on populations exposed to relatively high levels of ionizing radiation (e.g., Japanese atomic bomb survivors, and recipients of selected diagnostic or therapeutic medical procedures). Cancers associated with high dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.

The period of time between radiation exposure and the detection of cancer is known as the latent period and can be many years. Those cancers that may develop as a result of radiation exposure are indistinguishable from those that occur naturally or as a result of exposure to other chemical carcinogens. Furthermore, National Cancer Institute literature indicates that other chemical and physical hazards and lifestyle factors (e.g., smoking, alcohol consumption, and diet) significantly contribute to many of these same diseases.

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates -- below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv). Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation -- above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year-- such as Denver, Colorado have shown no adverse biological effects.

Even so, the radiation protection community conservatively assumes that any amount of radiation may pose some risk for causing cancer and hereditary effect, and that the risk is higher for higher radiation exposures. A linear, no-threshold (LNT) dose response relationship is used to describe the relationship between radiation dose and the occurrence of cancer. This dose-response model suggests that any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk. The LNT hypothesis is accepted by the NRC as a conservative model for determining radiation dose standards recognizing that the model may over estimate radiation risk.

High radiation doses tend to kill cells, while low doses tend to damage or alter the genetic code (DNA) of irradiated cells. High doses can kill so many cells that tissues and organs are damaged immediately. This in turn may cause a rapid body response often called Acute Radiation Syndrome. The higher the radiation dose, the sooner the effects of radiation will appear, and the higher the probability of death. This syndrome was observed in many atomic bomb survivors in 1945 and emergency workers responding to the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident. Approximately 134 plant workers and firefighters battling the fire at the Chernobyl power plant received high radiation doses--80,000 to 1,600,000 mrem (800 to 16,000 mSv)-- and suffered from acute radiation sickness. Of these, 28 died within the first three months from their radiation injuries. Two more patients died during the first days as a result of combined injuries from the fire and radiation.

Because radiation affects different people in different ways, it is not possible to indicate what dose is needed to be fatal. However, it is believed that 50% of a population would die within thirty days after receiving a dose to the whole body, over a period ranging from a few minutes to a few hours, between 350,000 to 500,000 mrem (3500 to 5000 mSv). This would vary depending on the health of the individuals before the exposure and the medical care received after the exposure. These doses expose the whole body to radiation in a very short period of time (minutes to hours). Similar exposure of only parts of the body will likely lead to more localized effects, such as skin burns.

Conversely, low doses--less than 10,000 mrem (100 mSv)-- spread out over long periods of time (years to decades) don't cause an immediate problem to any body organ. The effects of low doses of radiation, if any, would occur at the level of the cell, and thus changes may not be observed for many years (usually 5-20 years) after exposure.

Genetic effects and the development of cancer are the primary health concerns attributed to radiation exposure. The likelihood of cancer occurring after radiation exposure is about five times greater than a genetic effect (e.g., increased still births, congenital abnormalities, infant mortality, childhood mortality, and decreased birth weight). Genetic effects are the result of a mutation produced in the reproductive cells of an exposed individual that are passed on to their offspring. These effects may appear in the exposed person's direct offspring, or may appear several generations later, depending on whether the altered genes are dominant or recessive.

Although radiation-induced genetic effects have been observed in laboratory animals (given very high doses of radiation), no evidence of genetic effects has been observed among the children born to atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



tl;dr version: Radiation = bad