Sentences with phrase «much less radiation»

We have digital x-rays which require much less radiation than the previous film x-rays and we have a new digital trio scanner which is a digital scanner of your teeth.

I am in possesssion of several reports which show that UV radiation in the Northern and in the Southern atmosphere is decreasing (and even if it had moderately increased in the Arctic this would be much less the radiation for inhabitants in the Alps or at the Aequator.)

digital dental radiographs which require much less radiation exposure than conventional film

The size of the planet can also be estimated by looking at how much less radiation Earth sees from the star when a planet passes in front of it, according to a statement from the University of Bern.

Not exact matches

«Maybe people could control robotic machines from Jupiter's outer moon Callisto, where the radiation is much less powerful, especially on its back side,» Martin suggests.

If a cell is frozen, radiation does less damage to it because the free radicals it creates are much less mobile.

«It took us nine months to redo the circuitry on the Voyager spacecraft to make it much less susceptible to radiation effects.»

(I was ready to order Demron underwear to protect the most vital of my vitals, but DeMeo explained to me that testicular cells stop actively dividing much earlier in life than breast cells, leaving the former much less likely to become cancerous due to radiation exposure.

To a much lesser extent, aerosols also absorb infrared radiation reflected back from the ground.

Without it, the universe today would certainly be a much less interesting place, because there would be essentially no matter left around; annihilations would have converted everything into electromagnetic radiation by now.

On Titan, where solar ultraviolet radiation is much weaker and oxygen - bearing molecules are substantially less abundant, methane can last 10 million to 100 million years (which is still a short time in geologic terms).

New research suggests the Sun might be headed towards a «grand minimum» of a centuries - long cycle, during which the Earth would receive much less ultraviolet radiation.

Life could eventually spread farther when such stars evolve pass their flare stage, since spectral - type M stars emit much less ultraviolet radiation once they quiet down.

A brown dwarf is more like a star, producing some kind of stellar wind emissions, though that's probably much less energetic than the radiation belts of Jupiter.

However, scientists have observed that the radiation being emitted by the accretion disk around Sagittarius A * is much less than one would expect.

Use the speakerphone setting on your cellphone to reduce holding the phone to your ears (many headphones can offer as much radiation as a smartphone to the head, though potentially less heat).

Allowing for that falling on the oceans, and further decline due to angle of incidence as distance from equator increases, less the amount required by vegetation for photosynthesis, we are left with how much energy for conversion of solar radiation to heat / electricity / catalytic reaction to other fuels?

1) Greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and re-emit much of it back toward the surface, thus warming the planet (less heat escapes; Fourier, 1824).

After Mount Pinatubo erupted, while overall solar radiation was reduced by less than five percent, data showed a reduction of direct radiation by as much as 30 percent.

The sun's radiation penetrates and converts to heat at depth which is not at 294.2 K and obviously much less than this.

Once the radiation limits begin to be increased this should have a catalytic effect on reducing emissions: 1) it will mean radiation leaks are understood to be less dangerous that currently thought > less people evacuated from effected zones > reduced cost accident of accidents — reduced accident insurance cost; 2) population takes another look at the effects of radiation > gains an understanding it is much less harmful than they thought > fear subsides > less opposition > easier and less expensive to find sites supported by the people nearby > planning and sight approval costs come down over time

You haven't explained how the temperature is maintained at the Venus poles, where less than 1W / m ^ 2 of incident solar radiation reaches the surface, and not much more reaches the lower troposphere.

Richard Sharpe, GH gases, particularly CO2, do block some incoming solar radiation, although it is much less than the outgoing LWR blocked.

It elected not to simulate an amplifying effect, much less introduce dynamic cloud feedback to warming and solar radiation.

If there's no radiation from the Sun, no heat capacity in the model planet, no mass big enough to effect pressure changes («real» ideal gases which don't have mass), nothing much is happening because there's no movement, (movement from the play of hot and cold volumes as hot gases rise and cold sink, becoming less dense and gaining density), but,

Vertical south facing collectors get automatic protection during the summer because the summer sun is much higher in the sky, and provides less effective radiation on the collectors.

For IR it may be something like 1 / 10000, for solar radiation much less than one part in million.

It stands to reason that if a human optimum emites 100w / m2 of radiation through a duration, that earth is emitting much less per square metre.

New research suggests the Sun might be headed towards a «grand minimum» of a centuries - long cycle, during which the Earth would receive much less ultraviolet radiation.

Note that the radiation exposure from living within 50 miles of a coal fired plant is much, much less than exposure from living in a brick or stone house.

An increase of solar radiation will lead to a rising temperature, to an extent depending on the amount of ice on the surface; an ice cover will reflect much of the extra radiation away, causing less heating, until eventually the heating is sufficient to melt the ice.

It is all that our eyes can see, yet less than half of the solar radiation that reaches the Earth lies within this thin, central slice of a much wider spectrum of wavelengths.

EVEN IF we attribute ALL that radiation between 8 - 14 um to N2 & O2, the much more common N2 & O2 molecules are emitting much less energy.

So, the 729.9 W / m ^ 2 shown during the hours just before and after noon on a dry clear - sky day should be reading somewhat below 729.9 / (1 — 0.313) or less than 1062 W / m ^ 2 by measurement, near noon, on the equator, for the atmosphere itself, in those conditions, would not be absorbing as much direct solar radiation as the average shows in column C either (no clouds).

So, there is much less time for the dark side of the earth to lose heat by radiation before it face the sun and regains heat.

And «thermal radiation» is produced within an envelope that is the Planckian Black Body Spectral distribution; modified by some spectral emissivity, that may be very much less than 1.0 specially for gases (any gases, including monoatomic, homo - diatomic molecules, or even GHG molecules.

As for the rest, well, the dystopian evidence seems overwhelming indeed, to the point where it might be no stretch at all to say the biggest threat facing America is perhaps not global warming, not perpetual warmongering, not garbage food or low - level radiation or way too much Lindsay Lohan, but a populace far too ignorant to know how to properly manage any of it, much less change it all for the better.

I wont like to wear a device with radiation all the time, even though i know bluetooth radiation is much less powerful.