Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Radiation Exposure from the Dark

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Current data allow dark matter doses rivaling background radiation

desk verdict A clear, honest think piece on heavy composite dark matter as an ionizing-radiation background; the terrestrial window is a plausible loophole rather than a demonstrated gap in current constraints. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10521 v2 pith:RIITDERI submitted 2024-11-15 hep-ph astro-ph.COphysics.space-ph

Florian Niedermann , Martin S. Sloth This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COphysics.space-ph
keywords darkmatterstronglyinteractingcompositeradiationdosehumanexposureinelasticblobsspacedosimetry
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the usual assumption—dark matter deposits a negligible radiation dose in the human body—is not required by current data. It isolates an open window of mass and cross-section where heavy, strongly interacting composite dark matter would scatter elastically off nuclei and deposit roughly 10 mSv/yr on Earth, more than 30 times the known cosmic-ray background, and up to 0.6 Sv/yr in space if certain model-dependent cosmological constraints are set aside. The same logic works in reverse: if such radiation is not seen, existing and future dosimetry becomes a dark matter constraint. The paper then sketches an inelastic candidate, a baryon-destroying blob, that could give about one person in a thousand a 1 Sv instantaneous dose once in a lifetime. The point is not that dark matter is dangerous; it is that human radiation data can test a part of dark matter parameter space that conventional detectors do not cover.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two objects. For elastic scattering, the central object is the flux–dose relation (Eq. 2.5), derived from the dark-matter flux $F_X \simeq 7.5\times10^6\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\mathrm{s}^{-1} f (M_X/\mathrm{GeV})^{-1}$, the human-body mean free path $\lambda_X = 3\times10^{-23}\,\mathrm{cm}^3/\sigma_X$, and the energy deposit per collision $E_R \sim 20$ keV, together with a saturation bound (Eq. 2.6) that caps the dose once the particle deposits most of its kinetic energy. The second object, for inelastic scattering, is a composite dark blob—a large bound state of dark-matter particles whose constituents destroy baryons via $X + p^+ \to \tilde{X} + e^+ + \pi\ldots$; the positron and pions re-interact centimeters away, so the energy deposit is delocalized and the blob leaves no sharp track. Throughout, the paper parametrizes the uncertain relation between dark-matter-nucleus and dark-matter-nucleon cross-sections by $\sigma_X = w_N\sigma_N$ with $w_N$ of order unity, which is the handle that weakens the established experimental bounds.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier is a reanalysis of existing X-ray observatory data, such as the Chandra High-Resolution Camera, looking for pile-up events with multi-keV deposits in its 16-microsecond window: if no unexplained pile-up population appears for $\sigma_N \gtrsim 10^{-21}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$, the high-cross-section part of the elastic window would be excluded. For the inelastic claim, a dedicated search in IceCube for single baryon-destroying blob events, or a modern mica scan for localized centimeter-scale energy clusters, that finds zero events above background would rule out the one-in-a-thousand dose scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a model-independent elastic-scattering window exists in which dark matter acts as ionizing radiation. Starting from the known local dark-matter flux and a mean free path set by the dark-matter–nucleus cross-section, the dose relation $\sigma_N \simeq 10^{-28} w_R^{-1} w_N^{-1} (0.1/f)(M_X/\mathrm{GeV})(\Delta S/\mathrm{mSv})\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ maps mass and cross-section to an annual whole-body dose. With $f=1$, the exposure on Earth can be at least $10\,\mathrm{mSv/yr}$, and in space, where atmospheric shielding is absent, it can reach about $0.6\,\mathrm{Sv/yr}$ (roughly 1000 times the Earth background) if the model-dependent Milky Way satellite constraint is ignored. The apparent exclusion of this region by XQC, IMP, IMAX, Skylab, and IceCube relies on the scaling $\sigma_X \propto A^4\sigma_N$, which the paper argues fails for composite dark matter with $\sigma_N \gtrsim 10^{-31}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$; once that scaling is dropped, the window stays open. For the inelastic case, the paper claims that a baryon-destroying dark blob depositing about $10\,\mathrm{GeV}$ per nucleus collision and delocalized over centimeters would escape track-based mica and injury constraints, and that the IceCube flux bound means at most a few such blobs cross a square kilometer per year—so roughly one person in a thousand could receive a $1\,\mathrm{Sv}$ burst in a lifetime.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that composite dark matter escapes the usual rule that multiplies a nucleus-level cross-section by $A^4$, which would otherwise let XQC, IMP, IMAX, Skylab, and IceCube close the elastic window; it also assumes inelastic blobs leave centimeter-scale diffuse energy deposits rather than sharp tracks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the elastic window is real, measured human radiation doses on Earth already imply a new upper bound on this dark-matter component; the non-observation of a 10 mSv/yr excess constrains the product of abundance and cross-section in Eq. (2.5).
  • A reanalysis of existing space-based radiation data—such as the Mars Science Laboratory RAD measurement of 0.4 Sv/yr in transit—can probe the space window without building new detectors.
  • A dosimeter with a lower detection threshold than the ISS-RAD and LIDAL instruments (around $10^4$ keV/cm) could exclude or confirm the high-cross-section part of the elastic parameter space.
  • If the proposed inelastic blob exists at the level the paper allows, roughly one person in a thousand would experience a 1 Sv instantaneous dose; the absence of such unexplained single high-dose events in occupational or astronaut dosimetry records would sharpen the IceCube-derived constraint.
  • Because the dose scales linearly with the dark-matter fraction $f$ while the Lyman-alpha bound relaxes as $f^3$, a null result converts directly into a bound on how much of the dark matter can be in such composite states.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the same dose-calculation logic could be applied to whole-population health records: if the elastic component sat near the upper allowed level, annual dose maps and cancer incidence data would contain a dark-matter signal, making epidemiology a dark-matter detector.
  • The inelastic scenario predicts a distinctive pattern of very rare, spatially random high-dose events rather than a uniform background; this is testable in personal dosimetry registries and could be distinguished from noise by the absence of accompanying tracks.
  • A natural next calculation, not done in the paper, is the shielding correction for spacecraft hulls and the atmosphere at different altitudes, which would sharpen the predicted space dose and tell mission designers what sensor threshold would be needed.
  • If composite dark matter is cold and self-interacting, it may form dark disks or halos with velocity distributions different from the standard 250 km/s assumption; using the actual velocity distribution would move the allowed window.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper explores the possibility that dark matter in the form of heavy, strongly interacting composite states ("dark blobs" or Q-balls) could deliver a significant ionizing radiation dose to humans on Earth and in space. For elastic scattering, the authors derive a simple analytic formula (Eq. 2.5) for the annual whole-body dose as a function of the dark matter-nucleon cross section, mass, and abundance, and they claim that current data leave open a window where the terrestrial dose could exceed 10 mSv/yr, with up to 0.6 Sv/yr for space travelers if certain cosmological constraints are evaded. They argue that the standard A^4 enhancement of the dark matter-nucleus cross section breaks down for composite dark matter and parameterize the uncertainty by a factor w_N, taken to be of order unity. For inelastic scattering, they consider a baryon-destroying neutral blob and argue, from an IceCube flux bound, that roughly one person in a thousand could receive a 1 Sv dose once in a lifetime. The paper closes by suggesting re-analysis of existing radiation data and construction of low-threshold dosimeters as a way to constrain or detect this scenario.

Significance. The paper's transparent dimensional-analysis derivation of the dose formulas (Eqs. 2.4 and 2.5) and its explicit identification of the model-dependent steps are valuable: they clarify the logic of the "human as dark matter detector" program and give a concrete starting point for experimental re-analysis. The proposal that existing space-radiation data and X-ray observatory pile-up events could be used as dark matter constraints is original and falsifiable in principle. However, the central claim that current data allow a 10 mSv/yr terrestrial exposure is not supported by a concrete microphysical model: the only model sketched (the dark blob of Eq. 2.7) has cross sections far above the claimed window and would be stopped by the atmosphere. The significance therefore rests on an unproven scaling assumption, making the paper more a well-posed challenge than a demonstrated allowed region.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.5) and Fig. 1] The paper's central claim that current data allow a terrestrial whole-body dose of at least 10 mSv/yr rests on two unquantified choices: taking w_N of order unity in σ_X = w_N σ_N, and treating the XQC/IMAX/Skylab/IMP bounds as evaded because they use the A^4 scaling. No concrete composite model is provided that realizes w_N = O(1) in the cross-section range 10^-28–10^-26 cm^2 required by Eq. (2.5): the dark-blob model of Eq. (2.7) has geometric cross-sections σ_N ~ 10^-20–10^-14 cm^2, which are much larger and are stopped in the atmosphere. Thus the red region in the right panel is a parametric loophole, not a demonstrated allowed region. To support the claim, the paper should either compute w_N for a concrete model in the relevant range or explicitly state that the window is contingent on an unproven scaling assumption and is currently unconstrained only under that assumption.
  2. [Sec. 2, constraints discussion] The statement that "without the A^4 enhancement, constraints should be expected to become weaker" does not by itself establish that the window survives. The paper should show quantitatively how the XQC, IMAX, Skylab, and IMP limits translate into the (σ_N, M_X) plane under the adopted w_N parametrization. As it stands, the right panel simply omits these constraints, so the reader cannot verify that an allowed region remains; the paper's phrase "toned down" is not an exclusion analysis.
  3. [Sec. 3, inelastic scenario] The headline estimate that one person in a thousand could receive a 1 Sv dose once in a lifetime follows from two unsupported inputs. First, the IceCube flux bound (3.2) is introduced as "not more than a few events could have gone unnoticed per year," but no detector exposure, efficiency, or background estimate is given; since this number directly sets the human hit rate, it needs a quantitative derivation. Second, the assumption of 10 GeV deposited per nucleus collision (after Eq. 3.3) is an input axiom; the paper should discuss its range and the resulting uncertainty in Eq. (3.5).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.4)] The use of A = 1.7 × 10^4 cm^2 (body surface area) with a depth of 10 cm corresponds to a slab mass of roughly 170 kg, not a typical human mass; the dose conversion should state the assumed body mass, since it enters the normalization of Eq. (2.5).
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] In the left-panel caption, "hashed" should be "hatched."
  3. [Sec. 2, atmospheric shielding paragraph] The sentence "for cross-sections σ_X ≥ 10^-28 cm (M_X/GeV)" appears to have a units typo: the expression should be 10^-28 cm^2 (M_X/GeV).
  4. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3.1)] The excited state X~ and the kinematics (mass splitting, threshold) are not specified; a few words would clarify the inelastic assumption behind the delocalized track argument.
  5. [References] Reference [10] for the human body surface area is a pharmacokinetics paper; a standard anatomical source would be more appropriate for this value.
  6. [Sec. 4, Conclusion] The sentence "the radiation dose could be at least as large as 10 mSv per year" should be qualified with the w_N and constraint-modelling assumptions, as these are what make the dose possible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central dose formulas are derived from independent inputs, and the inelastic per-mille claim is a direct translation of the IceCube flux bound rather than a fitted outcome.

full rationale

The elastic-scattering dose estimate (Eqs. 2.1-2.5) is constructed from independent quantities: the local dark-matter density and velocity (fixed to rho_X = 3e5 GeV/m^3 and v_X = 250 km/s), the nuclear mean free path in water (Eq. 2.2), a ~20 keV recoil energy per collision, and human geometry (10 cm depth, 1.7e4 cm^2 area, 1 yr exposure). The 10 mSv/yr figure is obtained by evaluating this formula at f = 1 and at the atmospheric-shielding boundary, not by fitting a parameter to a target dose. The inelastic one-per-mille claim is likewise a re-expression of the IceCube flux constraint F_X <= 1e-17 cm^-2 s^-1 (Eq. 3.2) through the area ratio between IceCube and a human body, combined with a specified energy deposit per collision (Eqs. 3.3-3.5); it is a constraint translation rather than a predicted fit. The assumptions that composite dark matter can evade A^4 scaling and that w_N ~ O(1) (Sec. 2) are model-dependence or prior assumptions, not circular reductions: no equation in the paper is defined in terms of the result it is used to derive, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only external citation on the scaling breakdown is Digman et al. [9], which is not by the present authors; no load-bearing self-citation occurs. Therefore there is no identifiable circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central estimates rest on standard halo parameters, a composite-DM assumption that evades the usual A^4 scaling, and a specific hypothetical baryon-destroying blob for the inelastic case; f and w_N are free parameters chosen conservatively.

free parameters (3)
  • f = 1 in central estimates; can be <1
    Fraction of dark matter in the heavy interacting component. It scales the flux in Eq. (2.1) and is used to relax cosmological bounds (Lyman-alpha relaxes as f^3, CMB and MWS as f).
  • w_N = ~1
    Conversion factor between DM-nucleus cross section sigma_X and DM-nucleon cross section sigma_N. Chosen order unity conservatively, because the A^4 scaling is assumed to break down for composite DM.
  • w_R = taken as 1
    Radiation weighting factor converting Gray to Sievert. It is at least 1 and is set to 1 in the numerical estimates, a conservative choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Local dark matter density rho_X = 3e5 GeV/m^3 and velocity v_X = 250 km/s.
    Used in Eq. (2.1) to compute the flux. This is the standard halo model but is not measured for the hypothetical heavy component.
  • domain assumption Composite dark matter breaks the A^4 scaling between DM-nucleus and DM-nucleon cross sections for sigma_N > 1e-31 cm^2.
    Relied on in Sec. 2 to argue that XQC, IMP, IMAX, and Skylab constraints weaken. Taken from ref. [9], but it is load-bearing for the existence of an allowed window.
  • domain assumption An inelastic blob loses negligible energy in the atmosphere and Earth, so underground detectors are not shielded.
    Assumed in Sec. 3 to justify applying the IceCube flux bound to blobs that would otherwise be stopped by the Earth.
  • domain assumption IceCube would have noticed at most a few baryon-destroying blob events per year.
    This converts IceCube's non-observation into the flux bound FX <= 1e-17 cm^-2 s^-1 in Eq. (3.2), which directly sets the 1/1000 human rate.
  • ad hoc to paper The baryon-destroying inelastic interaction deposits roughly 10 GeV per nucleus collision.
    Assumed in Sec. 3 without a microscopic derivation from the Q-ball Lagrangian; this sets the 1 Sv dose scale.
invented entities (2)
  • Inelastic baryon-destroying neutral Q-ball blob (X)
    purpose: Deposits about 10 GeV per nucleus collision through nucleon destruction, delocalizing energy over centimetres and evading track-based constraints.
    No prediction outside the IceCube flux bound that is used to set the 1/1000 claim. The same bound is translated into the human exposure rate, so the entity has no independent falsifiable handle.
  • Elastic composite dark blob (bound state of chi scalars)
    purpose: Provides large geometric cross sections (1e-20 to 1e-14 cm^2) and masses up to 1e18 GeV, illustrating the saturation dose of about 6 w_R f Sv/yr.
    Adopted from ref. [32] and used as a concrete realization; there is no independent positive signal beyond the unobserved dose that motivates the search.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radiation Exposure from the Dark." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RIITDERI

@misc{pith2026241110521,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radiation Exposure from the Dark},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RIITDERI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10521}
}
read the original abstract

We explore the possibility that exotic forms of dark matter could expose humans on Earth or on prolonged space travel to a significant radiation dose. The radiation exposure from dark matter interacting with nuclei in the human body is generally assumed to be negligible compared to other sources of background radiation. However, as we discuss here, current data allow for dark matter models where this is not necessarily true. In particular, if dark matter is heavier and more strongly interacting than weakly interacting massive particle dark matter, it could act as ionizing radiation and deposit a significant amount of radiation energy in all or part of the human population, similar to or even exceeding the known radiation exposure from other background sources. Conversely, the non-observation of such an exposure can be used to constrain this type of heavier and more strongly interacting dark matter. We first consider the case where dark matter scatters elastically and identify the relevant parameter space in a model-independent way. We also discuss how previous bounds from cosmological probes, as well as atmospheric and space-based detectors, might be avoided, and how a re-analysis of existing radiation data, along with a simple experiment monitoring ionizing radiation in space with a lower detection threshold, could help constrain part of this parameter space. We finally propose a hypothetical dark matter candidate that scatters inelastically and argue that, in principle, one per mille of the Earth's population could attain a significant radiation dose from such a dark matter exposure in their lifetime.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Drukier, K

    A. Drukier, K. Freese, A. Lopez, D. Spergel, C. Cantor, G. Church et al.,New Dark Matter Detectors using DNA or RNA for Nanometer Tracking, 1206.6809

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    New class of biological detectors for WIMPs

    A.K. Drukier, C. Cantor, M. Chonofsky, G.M. Church, R.L. Fagaly, K. Freese et al.,New class of biological detectors for WIMPs, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29 (2014) 1443007 [1403.8154]. – 8 –

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    Death and Serious Injury by Dark Matter

    J. Singh Sidhu, R.J. Scherrer and G. Starkman,Death and serious injury from dark matter, Phys. Lett. B803 (2020) 135300 [1907.06674]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Starkman, A

    G.D. Starkman, A. Gould, R. Esmailzadeh and S. Dimopoulos,Opening the Window on Strongly Interacting Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D41 (1990) 3594

    work page 1990

  5. [5]

    LUX collaboration, Limits on spin-dependent WIMP-nucleon cross section obtained from the complete LUX exposure, Phys. Rev. Lett.118 (2017) 251302 [1705.03380]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    XENON collaboration, Dark Matter Search Results from a One Ton-Year Exposure of XENON1T, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) 111302 [1805.12562]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Dark Matter collisions with the Human Body

    K. Freese and C. Savage,Dark Matter collisions with the Human Body, Phys. Lett. B717 (2012) 25 [1204.1339]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Particle Data Group collaboration, Review of Particle Physics (RPP), Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 010001

    work page 2012

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Digman, C.V

    M.C. Digman, C.V. Cappiello, J.F. Beacom, C.M. Hirata and A.H.G. Peter,Not as big as a barn: Upper bounds on dark matter-nucleus cross sections, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 063013 [1907.10618]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Sparreboom and J

    A. Sparreboom and J. Verweij,Paclitaxel pharmacokinetics, threshold models, and dosing strategies, Journal of Clinical Oncology21 (2003) 2803 [https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.99.038]

    2003 doi

  3. [11]

    Donahue and A

    R.J. Donahue and A. Fasso,Radioactivity and radiation protection,

  4. [12]

    Erickcek, P.J

    A.L. Erickcek, P.J. Steinhardt, D. McCammon and P.C. McGuire,Constraints on the Interactions between Dark Matter and Baryons from the X-ray Quantum Calorimetry Experiment, Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 042007 [0704.0794]

    2007 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Wandelt, R

    B.D. Wandelt, R. Dave, G.R. Farrar, P.C. McGuire, D.N. Spergel and P.J. Steinhardt, Selfinteracting dark matter, in4th International Symposium on Sources and Detection of Dark Matter in the Universe (DM 2000), pp. 263–274, 6, 2000 [astro-ph/0006344]

    2000 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Nadler, V

    E.O. Nadler, V. Gluscevic, K.K. Boddy and R.H. Wechsler,Constraints on Dark Matter Microphysics from the Milky Way Satellite Population, Astrophys. J. Lett.878 (2019) 32 [1904.10000]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Buen-Abad, R

    M.A. Buen-Abad, R. Essig, D. McKeen and Y.-M. Zhong,Cosmological constraints on dark matter interactions with ordinary matter, Phys. Rept. 961 (2022) 1 [2107.12377]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kavanagh,Earth scattering of superheavy dark matter: Updated constraints from detectors old and new, Phys

    B.J. Kavanagh,Earth scattering of superheavy dark matter: Updated constraints from detectors old and new, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 123013 [1712.04901]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Albuquerque and C

    I.F.M. Albuquerque and C. Perez de los Heros,Closing the Window on Strongly Interacting Dark Matter with IceCube, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 063510 [1001.1381]

    2010 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ray,Celestial objects as strongly-interacting nonannihilating dark matter detectors, Phys

    A. Ray,Celestial objects as strongly-interacting nonannihilating dark matter detectors, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 083012 [2301.03625]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bhoonah, J

    A. Bhoonah, J. Bramante, B. Courtman and N. Song,Etched plastic searches for dark matter, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 103001 [2012.13406]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hooper, N

    D.C. Hooper, N. Schöneberg, R. Murgia, M. Archidiacono, J. Lesgourgues and M. Viel,One likelihood to bind them all: Lyman-α constraints on non-standard dark matter, JCAP 10 (2022) 032 [2206.08188]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Tulin and H.-B

    S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu,Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure, Phys. Rept. 730 (2018) 1 [1705.02358]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J. Fan, A. Katz, L. Randall and M. Reece,Double-Disk Dark Matter, Phys. Dark Univ.2 (2013) 139 [1303.1521]. – 9 –

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    McKeen, M

    D. McKeen, M. Moore, D.E. Morrissey, M. Pospelov and H. Ramani,Accelerating Earth-bound dark matter, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 035011 [2202.08840]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Marshall, D

    H.L. Marshall, D. Dewey and K. Ishibashi,In-flight calibration of the chandra high energy transmission grating spectrometer, Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng.5165 (2004) 457 [astro-ph/0309114]

    2004 arXiv

  17. [25]

    H. Yasuda,Effective Dose Measured with a Life Size Human Phantom in a Low Earth Orbit Mission, Journal of Radiation Research50 (2009) 89 [https://academic.oup.com/jrr/article-pdf/50/2/89/2753978/jrr-50-89.pdf]

    2009

  18. [26]

    Zeitlin, A.J

    C. Zeitlin, A.J. Castro, K.B. Beard, M. Abdelmelek, B.M. Hayes, A.S. Johnson et al.,Results from the Radiation Assessment Detector on the International Space Station: Part 1, the Charged Particle Detector, Life Sciences in Space Research39 (2023) 67

    2023

  19. [27]

    Romoli, L

    G. Romoli, L. Di Fino, G. Santi Amantini, V. Boretti, L. Lunati, C. Berucci et al.,LIDAL, a Time-of-Flight Radiation Detector for the International Space Station: Description and Ground Calibration, Sensors 23 (2023) 3559

    2023

  20. [28]

    Losekamm et al.,Measuring Cosmic Rays with the RadMap Telescope on the International Space Station, PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 099

    M.J. Losekamm et al.,Measuring Cosmic Rays with the RadMap Telescope on the International Space Station, PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 099

    2023

  21. [29]

    Zeitlin, D.M

    C. Zeitlin, D.M. Hassler, F.A. Cucinotta, B. Ehresmann, R.F. Wimmer-Schweingruber, D.E. Brinza et al.,Measurements of Energetic Particle Radiation in Transit to Mars on the Mars Science Laboratory, Science 340 (2013) 1080

    2013

  22. [30]

    Hassler, D.M., Zeitlin, C., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R.F., et al.,The Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD) Investigation, Space Sci Rev170 (2012) 503–558

    2012

  23. [31]

    Kribs and E.T

    G.D. Kribs and E.T. Neil,Review of strongly-coupled composite dark matter models and lattice simulations, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A31 (2016) 1643004 [1604.04627]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Grabowska, T

    D.M. Grabowska, T. Melia and S. Rajendran,Detecting Dark Blobs, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 115020 [1807.03788]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kusenko and M.E

    A. Kusenko and M.E. Shaposhnikov,Supersymmetric Q balls as dark matter, Phys. Lett. B 418 (1998) 46 [hep-ph/9709492]

    1998 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kusenko, V

    A. Kusenko, V. Kuzmin, M.E. Shaposhnikov and P.G. Tinyakov,Experimental signatures of supersymmetric dark matter Q balls, Phys. Rev. Lett.80 (1998) 3185 [hep-ph/9712212]

    1998 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Y. Ema, R. McGehee, M. Pospelov and A. Ray,Dark Matter Catalyzed Baryon Destruction, 2405.18472

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Snowden-Ifft, E.S

    D.P. Snowden-Ifft, E.S. Freeman and P.B. Price,Limits on dark matter using ancient mica, Phys. Rev. Lett.74 (1995) 4133. – 10 –

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.