1) The Average Background radiation per second we measured was .225 /s. This means that over 200 seconds that 45 of the measured collisions were just background radiation and that the histogram should be shifted 2.25 units to the left due to it measuring frequency of numbers of collisions. on each of these "numbers of collisions" 2.25 must be taken away. Also, 2.25 must be subtracted from the mean.

2) I would predict that it is the natural decay of elements around us in the building.

3) The maximum/peak count is 155 counts/10 seconds, the mean in 129.9, the median is 129.0, and the standard deviation is 11.08 (each of these data points is including the 2.25 counts per 10 seconds of background radiation)

4) They are very close to one another, based on the calculated data in logger pro.

5) The graph looks much like a bell curve

6) It is what is called a Gaussian distribution

7) It seems as though the decay is largely probability driven, explaining the bell curve shape. This would mean that it is highly unlikely for all of the radiation to occur at the maximum, but more likely than on the outsides.

8) The decays are somewhat random, but they do follow a Gaussian distribution which is based on probabilities. There is no reason that the sample could cease decaying for a while and then start up extremely quickly, however the probability of these events occurring is minuscule. So in that sense, no, the distribution is not truly random

9) Ours is about 28 counts, and this tells us how wide (or how spread out) our data is.

10) Any predictions wouldn't be very accurate. Every second the "number of counts per second" might be different and due to the probabilistic nature of the decay itself there is no way to know what is going to happen until it happens. however, due to the 28 count spread of the fwhm, any predictions would be accurate to probably more than a tenth of a second.

11) Possible, yes! Probable, not at all!

12) Absolutely! but the same as 11

13) Because half-life is a constant, the decay rate will change due to the changing mass of the radioactive specimen. I like to examine this question by looking at the extremes. If you have 1,000,000,000 atoms of Thallium, 500,000,000 have to decay in 3.5 years. but if you have 10 atoms, only 5 have to decay. Obviously, these yield different rates of decay.

14) No. This is because the rate of change of mass has a very small effect due to its size compared to the actual amount of mass. 

15) No. The thallium is decaying into other elements, and those are decaying into others and so on. But it is hard to tell whether it is raising the count number or lowering it because we don't know the resultant molecules' decay rates.

16) 30 seconds:

        1 minute: 4.726

        2 minutes: 5.610

        5 minutes: 10.36

        10 minutes: 10.97

        20 minutes: 11.05

        30 minutes: 11.08

The trend is increasing but by less after each interval. This means that as time goes on, the "dispersion" of the data is also increasing but flattening out. This demonstrates the semi-random nature of decay and how as time goes on, there are still outliers that are far outside the mean value that are changing the standard deviation, but the value is slowly reaching an equilibrium because the outliers are having less of an effect.

17) I would say that there is no preferable direction for these radiation particles to travel. Therefore, you could say that they are distributed in each direction equally which would make the "shape" a sphere. This would mean that the amount of particles collected is inversely proportional to the radius at which the meter is located (probably the square of the radius, but I'm not sure). Therefore, at twice the distance I would say we would measure 1/4th the particles