Science Memes

11068 readers

3160 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

631

Radioactivity (mander.xyz)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

62 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Eheran 100 points 4 months ago (3 children)

It will be radioactive forever. The question is where you put the threshold, which is fairly arbitrary.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Eh, it could be non-radioactive next week. That's not very likely, but it could be

[–] [email protected] 30 points 4 months ago (2 children)

eh, i could randomly teleport to the moon suddently, but things like theese are unlikely enough to be in effect completely and utterly impossible.

[–] xenoclast 17 points 4 months ago

!remindme 10^10^10 universe lifetimes

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

I could also phase through a wall by sheer coincidence of all my molecules missing the molecules of the wall, but yeah, not going to happen unfortunately

[–] thesporkeffect 6 points 4 months ago

It would imply a significant energy release within a short time in order to become non-radioactive right?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you only think about half live then yes it would be radioactive forever but in reality after a long time every atom would've decayed into non radioactive elements.

You can even calculate the expected time it would take for the random process of decay to terminate.

[–] Eheran 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"after a long time" - that is exactly my point. Where do you draw the line? It will never be non-radioactive, which the headline suggest would be the case in 1'500 years. As far as we know, everything might decay after some time. It will always have some Radon get trapped in it. Scatter some cosmic rays. Blablabla.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

By that logic, everything withing a few kilometers of the surface is radioactive, especially all life. That's not a useful definition of radioactive.

[–] Eheran 9 points 4 months ago

Hence my post, the relevant metric is "how much", not "if".

[–] drislands 3 points 4 months ago

I wonder how long it would take for the radioactivity to be indistinguishable from the atmospheric average.