Radiation, explained for general public

[RainDreamer]

I think most people here already know things that this video touches on, but I think it is something nice we can send for others to help educating them on the matter.

Anything else the experts want to add?

[Tex_NL]

Edited March 26, 2016 by Tex_NL

[YNM]

Your Hand is more radioactive than anything smaller than it (yes, there goes phones, batteries, earphones...)

[Kerbart]

Your main problem is that you're trying to debunk an irrational fear by being rational. And it’s done by the “same” scientists (they’re all “scientists” after all) who told us that nuclear power plants are perfectly safe and nothing could ever, ever, happen. Cue Harrisburg, Chernobyl, Fukushima.

You don’t have to tell me how wrong that is and how one has nothing to do with the other. I know that. The problem is that Joe Public doesn’t know that and has learned over time that for something that you cannot sense, history has taught that having a blind trust in science regarding how safe something is might not be the wisest action; the people that tell us that “x” is perfectly safe and should not be feared seem to have a hidden agenda sometimes. That is the problem that needs to be solved first, not public ignorance regarding the dangers and safety of radiation.

The scientific community treating this as an ignorance problem is just as ignorant as Joe Public treating “radiation” as a ZOMG problem. It’s an equal display of not understanding the underlying issues and ignorant behavior (“let’s educate the people”) that doesn’t address the true problem surrounding this—a lack of credibility.

[WinkAllKerb'']

the thing i like about radiations, is they irradiates from the sun and planet core like a cool breeze in the air, that make me feel green. ; )  ; )

that really make me feel like that also:

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=12144

And this as well.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=12104

A magnetic attraction "to the stars".

 

Edited March 26, 2016 by WinkAllKerb''
like limit youpi tralalala ; )

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Your main problem is that you're trying to debunk an irrational fear by being rational. And it’s done by the “same” scientists (they’re all “scientists” after all) who told us that nuclear power plants are perfectly safe and nothing could ever, ever, happen. Cue Harrisburg, Chernobyl, Fukushima.

You don’t have to tell me how wrong that is and how one has nothing to do with the other. I know that. The problem is that Joe Public doesn’t know that and has learned over time that for something that you cannot sense, history has taught that having a blind trust in science regarding how safe something is might not be the wisest action; the people that tell us that “x” is perfectly safe and should not be feared seem to have a hidden agenda sometimes. That is the problem that needs to be solved first, not public ignorance regarding the dangers and safety of radiation.

The scientific community treating this as an ignorance problem is just as ignorant as Joe Public treating “radiation” as a ZOMG problem. It’s an equal display of not understanding the underlying issues and ignorant behavior (“let’s educate the people”) that doesn’t address the true problem surrounding this—a lack of credibility.

It's not just one thing. 

Yes, there is a lack of credibility, but only to an extent. 

The issue is that nuclear plants fail spectacularly. Resulting in a lot of consequences. But the actual death toll is much less than coal. I forgot the name of this effect, but it basically describes that if something goes wrong on a spectacular scale it's somewhat more feared. Airplanes, trains, and the like versus cars.

But there's more. There's been a propaganda campaign against nuclear devices and their radiation despite their lower cost per kilowatt hour and lower number of deaths per kilowatt hour than the leading power sources.

Even the area around Chernobyl is recovering.

Then you have a lack of knowledge. It's not nearly as severe as the other issues, though.

All of these combine to create an anti nuclear case that seems alright. Anecdotal evidence is better than data when arguing for something, particularly if you're trying to convince  a non-scientific person.

[Kerbart]

1 minute ago, Bill Phil said:

All of these combine to create an anti nuclear case that seems alright. Anecdotal evidence is better than data when arguing for something, particularly if you're trying to convince  a non-scientific person.

It certainly didn't help the nuclear industry that Fukushima happened just as nuclear energy seemed to be gaining in the public opinion. 

The fact that we're now learning that TEPCO knew the reactor was experiencing a meltdown when they were still announcing to the press that they were doing everything in their power to prevent a meltdown from happening doesn't really help.

The Chernobyl area is recovering, sadly, has more to do with the side-effect of having virtual no human life in the area. It kind of makes you think  how bad we treat our environment; radioactive poisoning of an area is less harmful than letting humans live there, it seems.

[RainDreamer]

Nuclear politics aside, I do hope people understand more about the differences between ionizing radiation and non ionizing radiation though. Getting tired of people saying WiFi and cell phone causing cancer and whatever health problems they want to blame on.

[Nibb31]

12 hours ago, RainDreamer said:

Nuclear politics aside, I do hope people understand more about the differences between ionizing radiation and non ionizing radiation though. Getting tired of people saying WiFi and cell phone causing cancer and whatever health problems they want to blame on.

The issues with radio waves doesn't have anything to do with ionizing radiation. It's the thermal effect that hurts. I would strongly encourage you not to sit in front a microwave transmission antenna or to use a leaky microwave oven. Folks that work on large antennas can get serious burns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_burn

Where there is disagreement is in the level of exposure and what levels constitute a health risk, but it is a fact that the thermal effects of radio waves can be dangerous.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Nibb31

[RainDreamer]

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

The issues with radio waves doesn't have anything to do with ionizing radiation. It's the thermal effect that hurts. I would strongly encourage you not to sit in front a microwave transmission antenna or to use a leaky microwave oven. Folks that work on large antennas can get serious burns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_burn

Where there is disagreement is in the level of exposure and what levels constitute a health risk, but it is a fact that the thermal effects of radio waves can be dangerous.

Oh I am not going to dispute that. I am pretty sure the military even developed an area denial weapon using the same principle, though the name escape me at the moment. However I doubt WiFi and cellphone even emit anywhere close to that amount of energy to seriously harm anything.

[shynung]

2 hours ago, RainDreamer said:

Oh I am not going to dispute that. I am pretty sure the military even developed an area denial weapon using the same principle, though the name escape me at the moment. However I doubt WiFi and cellphone even emit anywhere close to that amount of energy to seriously harm anything.

What you meant probably is the Active Denial System.

Quote

The Active Denial System (ADS) is a non-lethal, directed-energy weapon developed by the U.S. military, designed for area denial, perimeter security and crowd control. Informally, the weapon is also called the heat ray since it works by heating the surface of targets, such as the skin of targeted human subjects.

[kerbiloid]

On 27.03.2016 at 5:30 PM, shynung said:

What if it hits a parabolic antenna opposite to it?

Edited March 28, 2016 by kerbiloid

[Rakaydos]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

What if it hits a parabolic antenna opposite to it?

Parabolic reflectors assume incoming signals are coming from arbitrarally far away, and thus each ray is parallel. The antenna in the picture above is for dispersion, however. A parabolic reflector would miss it's focal point.

[kerbiloid]

32 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Parabolic reflectors assume incoming signals are coming from arbitrarally far away, and thus each ray is parallel. The antenna in the picture above is for dispersion, however. A parabolic reflector would miss it's focal point.

Yes, I see,But what if its dispersed microwave radiation occasionally hits a, say, TV parabolic antenna and it gets back a reflected and concentrated beam?

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by kerbiloid

[Rakaydos]

39 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Yes, I see,But what if its dispersed microwave radiation occasionally hits a, say, TV parabolic antenna and it gets back a reflected and concentrated beam?

 

That's what I was saying, it wouldnt -be- reflected in a concentrated beam- it's just reflecting off a curved surface.

That's not saying you want to be wherever the focal point of the reflector actually is, but it's not going to bounce back and kill the weapon.

[Mr Shifty]

I think there's a tendency among scientifically aware folks to over-minimize the risks of radiation due to nuclear facilities, as if it's a silly concern that exists only in the lurid fantasies of tree-hugging environmental loons. But, it is actually quite dangerous. There's no question that standing unshielded anywhere near an operating nuclear reactor will be invariably fatal in painful and grotesque ways. I never understand why people throw up that xkcd chart seeking to minimize radiation danger when the punchline is the little square in the middle that shows the dose at Chernobyl after the accident. I've been a radiation worker for more than 15 years. The reason the public generally doesn't have to worry (mostly) is because of stringent regulation, engineering, training, and procedures. It's not because what we're doing isn't potentially dangerous.

[Bill Phil]

12 minutes ago, Mr Shifty said:

I think there's a tendency among scientifically aware folks to over-minimize the risks of radiation due to nuclear facilities, as if it's a silly concern that exists only in the lurid fantasies of tree-hugging environmental loons. But, it is actually quite dangerous. There's no question that standing unshielded anywhere near an operating nuclear reactor will be invariably fatal in painful and grotesque ways. I never understand why people throw up that xkcd chart seeking to minimize radiation danger when the punchline is the little square in the middle that shows the dose at Chernobyl after the accident. I've been a radiation worker for more than 15 years. The reason the public generally doesn't have to worry (mostly) is because of stringent regulation, engineering, training, and procedures. It's not because what we're doing isn't potentially dangerous.

But everything is potentially dangerous. Nuclear things are dangerous in a different way.

Heck, three-mile island was somewhat human error, the system was going to activate an automatic failsafe before some of the operators overrided it, although they didn't know what was going on, so no blame can really be given.

Radiation is dangerous, no one is saying that it's not. But cars are, too. So are buildings in general. A few hundred things people do all the time are more dangerous than radiation. 

The problem is that the danger is overblown. It's not as bad as people think. We can't even destroy ourselves with the current nuclear arsenal. And yet people say we can.

[lajoswinkler]

There is IONIZING and NONIONIZING radiation.

 

Light is nonionizing radiation. Gamma rays is ionizing radiation. Lumping everything into "radiation" is just perpetuating the public ignorance. And no, "radiation" is not a public name for ionizing radiation.

[kerbiloid]

The electicity kills much more people every year than the radiation ever.

[PB666]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/chernobyl-hints-radiation-may-be-less-dangerous-than-thought-a-1088744-2.html

Basically the arguement is that unless you are a small milk drinking child . . . . . .

There was an old woman living outside of chernobyl who said that the animals don't scare here and the radiation doesn't scare her, only the people scare her.

 

 

[tater]

Everything has associated mortality/morbidity. The key is to look at the amount of power humans need, and the mortality/morbidity per unit power produced.

We could all use fireplaces for heating and cooking, then people would die from smoke inhalation related illness, and from logging activities, as well as the sort of cooking injuries seen in the 3d world which would make the deaths from nuclear power look insignificant. The same would be true for coal. Even wind power has killed a few in accidents (windmills are tall, people can fall), but the power produced is so tiny that makes it look relatively bad---though still really safe (particularly once pumping water behind dams is not the only way to store power). Ditto solar (people fall off their roofs both panels)---but still super safe.

If you had to very roughly assign risk, then burning stuff for power would be the most dangerous---along with dams (since real dam failures have killed hundreds of thousands of people, sadly). Every other method to produce power would be "very safe," including nuclear. You could throw in the 2 atomic bomb casualties, and nuclear is still safe per unit power produced (since it makes loads of power per plant).

Edited April 26, 2016 by tater

[sevenperforce]

I think it's too complicated an explanation. People's attention spans aren't that long, and while I automatically know what is meant by "higher" and "lower" energy radiation, most people don't.

I think the concepts should be simplified, using terms closer to everyday use. For example...

"Radiation is a term scientists use to describe any form of moving energy. Heat moving between two objects is a form of radiation. Light is a form of radiation. Electricity is a form of radiation. Relativistic particles in nuclear colliders are a form of radiation. Even waves on the surface of the ocean can be considered radiation. Most of the time, radiation refers to light or things like light, so that's what we'll be talking about here.

"Obviously, not all radiation is dangerous, or we would all drop dead instantly. Whether a particular kind of radiation is dangerous depends on a relatively familiar factor: temperature. 'Hot' radiation will burn you; 'cold' radiation will not.

"Most radiation we are exposed to is low-temperature radiation...radiation so 'cold' that no amount of it will ever be able to hurt you. Radios, computers, cellphones, and televisions all operate using radiation with a temperature far, far lower than the human body, so they have no chance of causing harm.

"Slightly warmer radiation includes microwave radiation, infrared radiation, artificial lights, and sunlight. These are closer to the temperature of the human body, so they can burn you...but only if you are exposed to quite a lot. Cooking food in the microwave or going outside on a sunny day is basically the same process: you're exposing an object (the food, in the first case, or yourself in the second case) to a LOT of slightly-warm light. Too much, and you'll burn. However, burns from microwave, infrared, or sunlight affect only the surface of your body and cannot cause long-term harm.

"Very hot radiation includes high ultraviolet, x-ray, gamma ray, and nuclear radiation. Very hot radiation is hot enough to burn away portions of individual atoms, which can cause cancer and death. Very hot radiation, also known as 'ionizing radiation', is the only thing you should worry about.

"Surprisingly, there are sources of this 'hot radiation' all around us...but not from technology. Rather, most sources of hot radiation already exist in nature. Radon in the soil, potassium in bananas, ultraviolet sunlight, and even the carbon in your body produces hot radiation. Thankfully, however, the levels of hot radiation produced from such natural sources are very low...so low that your body will recover well before any permanent damage is done.

"Just like a very hot stove is only dangerous if you touch it, very hot radiation is only dangerous if you are exposed to a lot of it. This can happen if you are very close to a very bright source of hot radiation, like a nuclear reactor. But just like you can touch a hot stove with an oven mitt and not be burned, you can be 'shielded' from hot radiation pretty easily. Sunscreen shields you from hot radiation in sunlight, while the lead casings around nuclear reactors shield scientists and technicians from the hot radiation in them.

"Most sources of hot radiation are too dim to cause any harm, and the ones bright enough to cause harm are always kept tucked away in a safe place. Accidents with 'hot radiation' do happen, of course, but these are rare. Although using 'hot radiation' as a source of energy does carry some danger, accidents are so rare that it causes far less harm than energy sources like coal and natural gas."

[PB666]

24 minutes ago, tater said:

Everything has associated mortality/morbidity. The key is to look at the amount of power humans need, and the mortality/morbidity per unit power produced.

We could all use fireplaces for heating and cooking, then people would die from smoke inhalation related illness, and from logging activities, as well as the sort of cooking injuries seen in the 3d world which would make the deaths from nuclear power look insignificant. The same would be true for coal. Even wind power has killed a few in accidents (windmills are tall, people can fall), but the power produced is so tiny that makes it look relatively bad---though still really safe (particularly once pumping water behind dams is not the only way to store power). Ditto solar (people fall off their roofs both panels)---but still super safe.

If you had to very roughly assign risk, then burning stuff for power would be the most dangerous---along with dams (since real dam failures have killed hundreds of thousands of people, sadly). Every other method to produce power would be "very safe," including nuclear. You could throw in the 2 atomic bomb casualties, and nuclear is still safe per unit power produced (since it makes loads of power per plant).

Chernobyl was bad for people, but wait, good for hermits. It was bad for green, but wait good for green. It was supposed to devastate wildlife, and yet it encouraged wildlife. It was bad for tourism, but wait, it is good for green tourism. Bad for nuclear power industry. Bad for the soviet union but good for breakaway republics.

The way to solve this problem is to surround nuclear power plants with green zones and simply let the wildlife flourish, then if theirs an accident, it will be clear if it is good or bad. Someone should take some of those Indian lions and put them in Chernobyl maybe a few tigers, some elephants, rename it Noahs Ark and turn it into a gigantic theme park.

Nuclear is one of the best sources of energy, you might contest the fact that their might be better use for Uranium 238/235 in space, but there appears to be alot of uranium in underdeveloped regions can develop. Here we have two disasters, one with a poorly designed reactor which was well over its expected life going through an unauthorized shut down procedure and another set of reactors, better designed but survived a massive earthquake and tsunami but someone forgot to put the generators on safe ground. If they had left one reactor running they might have survived the accident.

 

[Kerbart]

I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but I will until it sinks in.

Will people listen to what you're saying?

No. They already have an opinion. It's wrong, and it doesn't matter. The nuclear industry keeps shooting itself in the foot by lying about danger when there is danger. That creates a trust issue. Someone who claims to be an independent scientist is claiming that it's safe. Been there, done that. Why would John Q. Public change their opinion based on that?

You can argue over what to say once you've gotten through the front door, but that ignores the fact that you won't get through the front door.

[tater]

There is a danger, but it is tiny per unit power produced. Saying this is just fact, it's not a lie.

Having a modern nuclear plant nearby adds vanishingly small risk to anyone's life. They are far more likely to die from just about any external cause you could name than the power plant.

3 Mile Island killed exactly zero people.

Fukushima killed exactly zero people (the 2 lives lost (?) were during the actual tsunami as I recall) to this point, and exposure might kill a fraction of a person or two (if some responders lose a few years of life later due to cancer).

So we've had one accident that killed people, ever, and it was a terrible plant design in a country that had zero concern about the lives of its people, which no longer even exists.

@PB666 makes a great point about green areas around such plants. Makes a load of sense.

Edited April 26, 2016 by tater