Science Memes

11130 readers

3273 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

[–] Anticorp 28 points 4 months ago (33 children)

How is Chernobyl safe for wildlife now, but this book is still dangerous?

[–] bouh 33 points 4 months ago (11 children)

Marie Curie studied radioactivity with pure and very active materials with no protection. The radioactivity of the notebook is indirect radioactivity, that is material that becomes radioactive after being exposed to powerful ionizing radiations. It must be noted that the notebook may not be deadly radioactive. And if it will be for 1500 years, it won't be deadly for 1500 years. For reference, bananas tend to be radioactive too. And you are exposed to ionizing radiations when you take the plane.

Chernobyl had two reactors burn iirc. Most of the radioactive material was in the reactor, but the fire made smoke out of radioactive materials. The quantity of smoke, in kg, that go out was significant, but it got diluted in the atmosphere and spread. Which means there wasn't so much dust, in mass, that got in any one place. The dust is also not only uranium, but a combination of uranium and materials that were contaminated like the notebook. With the rain, the dust was washed and distributed more, and with the time, materials become less and less radioactive.

Both the book and chernobyl are not dangerously radioactive. But because of the nature of radioactivity, care must always be taken.

[–] _bac 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ionizing radiation can't produce secondary radioactivity in materials...

[–] bouh -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well, maybe explain my confusion then, instead of being an ass.

[–] CommissarVulpin 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

So there’s four types of radiation: alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron. When you’re talking about radioactive materials, it’s almost exclusively the first three. In addition to the inherent danger of the object itself, there’s also the danger of radioactive contamination: not making other things radioactive, but shedding bits of themselves as dust and then that dust getting on other things, or getting ingested/inhaled by humans.

Active fission reactions, like what goes on in the core of a nuclear reactor (or perhaps messing around with some plutonium and a screwdriver), produce neutron radiation. Neutrons can make other things radioactive, via a process called “neutron activation”, whereby the neutrons bind to the material and change some of the atoms into radioactive isotopes.

I hope that helps, and feel free to ask me anything else about radiation. I have some education about it thanks to my job, and I’m always happy to help other people understand it more as well.

[–] bouh 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ha ! Turns out I'm right after all : radioactivation can happen with all type of radiations. But neutron activation is the lowest energy one.

You are right that it's probably a contamination for the book though, and not directly an activation (although carbon can be activated and will be found in the book).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The thing you said that someone disagreed with was calling it ionizing radiation, which is a more general term and describes radiation with enough energy to ionize an atom or molecule, which means stripping off at least one of its electrons. That requires a lot less energy than activating nuclei in an element that is not radioactive to radioactivity. UV light and X-rays are both ionising radiation, but are not from radioactivity and cannot induce radioactivity. Of course a lot of radioactive radiation (α, β, γ) is also too low-energy to activate more nuclei. It depends on the energy of the radiation and the specific element you're trying to activate (how close it is to being radioactive, so to speak).

So like CommissarVulpin said - the real danger is more likely to be contamination

[–] roguetrick 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yeah, like you can activate small amounts of material with alpha particles from a particle accelerator like Cockcroft did or really bombarding them with relatively low energy concentrated alpha particles like Curie's daughter did, but it's not generally a major contributing factor to the radioactivity from just being around alpha emitters since you really have to do it very intentionally.

[–] bouh 1 points 4 months ago

I know quite a bit about radioactivity thanks to my studies. I was sure all radiations could activate something, but it turns out I was wrong apparently because I can't find anything but neutron activation.

I'm pretty sure alpha, beta and gamma rays can stick to a particle, often bringing it in an unstable state that will force it to release something to get into a stable state. That's particle physics. And that's why we call them ionising radiations : because they turn atoms into ions. But my memories are definitely fuzzy, and it was not were I was the best.

Those radiations may only activate for a too short time to be useful maybe? I don't know.

load more comments (9 replies)

load more comments (30 replies)