Interesting and informative video, definitely helpful for someone who lacks this kind of scientific knowledge. But what strikes me most, is the development of your abilities as a presenter and also as a video editor. As someone who has been following your channel for perhaps a year it seems to me, looking back at your older videos now, that you have really honed your craft and become a presenter who is even more accessible and engaging. Well done!
Detractor comment: Not a fan of nostril cams no matter how great the individual is, all I can think of is the narcissism displayed in an Inconvenient Truth as if you really want to be that intimately close to such a monster in that case, no, I want to run for my life
Finally someone who talks sense about IONIZING radiation. I handle Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 test sources on a bi-daily basis and even Uranium ore that I have sitting in my cabinet about 1 meter away. I don't fear this test sources at all because they are nicely encased in a plastic disk. The urianium ore I am far more careful with even though the radiation is less. Because of the fact that tiny fragments can (and do) come of from time to time and those can be ingested (which is not that worrisome because normally you'd pooh them out within the day and damage is minimal to none). Inhaling is a different issue all together. I have people cringe (like I do when people own snakes) when they come in my place and see the uranium ore, the americium (which I make the feel even more uneasy saying that it is a decay product from plutonium) and some of my quantum random number generators that are stacked up ready to be send. I show them that these (made with Cesium-137 test sources) do indeed emit some gammas and they go white from fear. Then on a nice sunny day I say take the meter and let's go outside and they counts go higher than in the house with the radioactive test sources. Simply because of the solar radiation and the amounts of thorium in the sand. Beaches are a wonderful place to get some high readings.
I have a question for you. I heard that their were Biological molecules but I thought that molecules created RNA, then DNA and then cells but apperently that's wrong.
gamma radiation is an interesting case because it penetrates through a lot of matter before being absorbed but that also means it does not frequently interact with your atoms. So you would need more shielding to block it, but much of it would pass through you and do no damage. The worst case is if you eat significant amounts of radioactive atoms because that exposes you to nuclear radiation from the inside for a long period of time.
@DaffyDaffyDaffy33322 @TiagoTiagoT Atoms that are not radioactive CAN become radioactive but only under unusual circumstances like neutron radiation. Neutrons can easily be captured by the nucleus because they are uncharged. This makes the atom into a different isotope, which may decay by emitting nuclear radiation. Also, it is not 'elements' that are radioactive, but 'isotopes'. All elements have radioactive isotopes, but some have no stable isotopes - these are noted on the Periodic Table
So did You learn at school that radiation has nothing in common with viruses? Except that radiation always destroys Your DNA but a virus can improve it...
@HayZing I think mainly because neutron radiation is not very common. Virtually all radioactive atoms decay by emitting alpha, beta, or gamma rays. The only place where one would find a significant number of neutrons is in a nuclear reactor.
I love how to see the difference of him now and a decade ago, you can really see the growth in confidence in his speech as well as how more interactive he is in his videos than before. They've only been getting better and always have been great content for science junkies like me.
1:20 - The problem is not "radiation not being able to pass through air". It's more of "Radiation not hitting the detecter" because it's going Upway, Downways or sideways of it. If we imagine thar radiation is spreading like a wavefront (which is usually counted as sphere) then detectable radiation is on that fitting in an area of fixed size. The amount of radiation detected is thus a ratio of this area, to total area of sphere (since total radiation in a front is constant). So as we move away from center, this ratio get less and less. Proportianally to R times -2. And the whole thing after this is... not totally true either. DNA is a rather complex molecule. Long, swilrly and all. And thus it is easy to breack if an external force applied to it. And alpha and beta radiation actually have enough penetration power to reach out DNA and hit it, potentially damaging it. All by itself, it's not a big deal. Our cells have a built-in mechanism to fix damage, by actually storin two copyes of each DNA, and most of time those copies are tied together, supporting each other, so if one get's damaged, it can easily repair according to it's copy. The problem starts when you get somwhere where a rain of radiation is that heavy, so having both copyes damaged simultaniously becomes relatively possible. And that is when you start having "radiaction sickness". The light version is when you have a limited amount of damaged cells. They will die off, but eventually your neiboring cells will replace them with new ones. In heavy version you get so many cells dead because of DNA damage, you are unable to replace them and you die. And Ther is also a really trycky third varian where a damaged cell is damaged in a way, so that it can live on, but will behave differently. And in that case there is a small chance that this cell will be more livable than it's neiboring cells. But not performing it's intended role. So that is stars replacing it's neiboring cells with copies of itself. That is when you get Cancer. Phew... that was some wall of text.
Oh... and in defence of "Radiactive atoms are more dangerous than radioaction itself" (which is also true). If you only get radiation from the outside, you ca easily avoid further harm, by getting avay from the source. Easy. If you have radioactive atom inside you (or jut atop your skin) - it's not that easy to get away from this radiaction source. So you no longer can cut the time you are being exposed to radiation. And the longer the time, the higher the probability of radiation sickness.
Павел Жданов what are you a russian nuclear physicist or something? hahaha..... please don't kill us.(just kidding. radioactive material also heats up inside the body when inhaled in a certain quantity making some enzymes less efficient and thus also causing harm in the body)
Alpha and Beta radiation really don't have a high range (the range for the Alpha particle is some centimeters, for the Beta particle less than one meter to several meters).
Lizard771 It's important to point out that different tissues of the body are more of less radiosensitive than others. Because our skin contains an outer layer of completely dead (and non-reproducing) cells, any molecular damage from radiation doesn't make a difference to our health, although we can still get skin cancer, usually as a result of exposure to another form of ionizing (dangerous) radiation: that from our sun. The same thing applies to other areas of the body like the CNS and compact bone tissue that don't replicate often. Something like an ovum which could eventually go on to divide trillions of times to form a complete human is much more sensitive to damage from radiation. Fortunately, most of the really radiosensitive stuff like sex cells and our digestive tract are tucked away inside out bodies, so low-energy radiation can't tunnel deep enough to affect it.
The blonde lady with the glasses was referring to the inverse square law. Alpha particles (helium-4 nuclei) have null effect on the outside, but do a lot of damage on the inside than beta or gamma. Beta (electrons) can be absorbed by a few mm of aluminum or copper for example. Gamma loses its energy along each time it interacts with matter. It's electromagnetic radiation. About 55% of everyday radioactivity comes from Radon + decay daughters. I'm a nuclear enthusiast, so I'm familiar with handling, studying, and storing radioactive materials. Radioactivity makes many people cringe, and those people usually don't even understand the basics of radioactivity. Plutonium-239 is essentially a pure alpha emitter. Strontium-90 is essentially a pure beta emitter, and Cesium-137 is a beta emitter, but it releases gamma rays when its metastable isomer, Barium-137m decays to stable Barium-137. Each specific radionuclide emit different energies of different particles in different percentages, even if it's the same mode of decay.
coal power plants account for a percent of radiation because they burn coal which contains radioactive atoms, which then travel through the atmosphere to you and decay. You'd receive much less near a nuclear power station.
@Chuukun1 You can have radioactive atoms! In fact I have many radioactive atoms inside me right now. There is no contradiction with the terminology. To wit: you can have an atom of carbon. There are isotopes of carbon. Some of them are radioactive. If you have an atom of that isotope then you have a radioactive atom of carbon.
Thank you for clearing that up. I couldn't put up with hearing the term 'radiation' being used in the news because I always thought (from my school days) the correct term was 'radioactivity' - and that 'radiation' simply referred to everything from x-rays to radio waves (including visible light). So the media HAVE been using essentially the wrong term all along.
puncheex2 I personally know a lot about physics, it's more fun to not be ignorant. Most people are scared of the unknown, and they refuse to learn. They call that a paradox
I found your argument quite enjoyable to read. Also I have a question. Is it possible to run out of nuclear fuel sources? No I know uranium gets depleted. I mean ALL of the nuclear sources. Like can our nuclear energy ever be in the same trouble as our fossil fuels which are supposidly currently running out.
great question! there are many kinds of radiation emitted by the sun, and only some of it gets to us through the atmosphere. the particle energy (which is most damaging to biology) doesn't make it.
Radiation can also could be come from our light source like sun, fluorescence light, laser beam, and so on not just the atom ray radiation. RF wave also could be the radiation. The radioactive is refer to the unstable ionized nucleus of the atom particle inside the material spontaneously emitting the ionized radiation. That's the distinction term between radiation and radioactive.
Thunderf00t made a video recently wherein he stated that nuclear powerplants don't use enriched enough uranium that it explodes, or not the right isotope, or something like that. (I don't know the exact science here). Anyway, he said it'd just get a few thousand degrees hot and melt its way through some meters of concrete. So the only likely way for this to happen would then be a dirty bomb? Taking nuclear power plant waste and blowing it into a big area with regular explosives?
Todos los videos son de verdad excelentes, increibles. Por favor algún dia les agreguen subtitulos en español para quienes no dominamos tanto el ingles y para que millones de personas de habla hispana puedan disfrutar de la ciencia. Subtitulos por favor!!!!
I REALLY WISH: You would make a new video on the issues with the 3 power plants that have had issues. Folks need to know what 3-mile island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are all about, but why nuclear power is still better than coal etc. ALSO, I did not see the animated image in YOUR right hand (0:28) until I had watched this about a dozen times while watching this in class. The contrast is too low for your atom model in your RIGHT hand. Also, having downloaded the video, I feel kind of bad that you don't get a view bump every time I watch this.... nor the income from RU-vid. I wish there was a really good solution for this fact. As a teacher I cannot count on the internet to be working when I am teaching class and I have to download the material instead.
So, from a terminology and advanced mathematical perspective (where folks call them transcendental constants rather than pi, etc and argue over hyper-parallelism), but operationally, x^2 follows an exponential growth (both ways) and one way for positive numbers. I get into these sorts of things with pure mathematicians (like my Mother inlaw lol). Being a computer scientist, I stick with the mundane of math.
Microwaves can also be damaging at close range. That's why most of microwave ovens have a security bolt in their chasis, so that it is not easy to remove their cover.
It's been a long night and I am not a mathematician, so I concede the argument. Additionally, I normally argue with the folks with aluminum hats, so it's nice to have one with someone who can keep grounded. As for P=NP, I'll let me computer be the judge of that, but only if it can confirm that it is correct. lol
Note that x^2 is raised to a power, an exponent, ergo exponential. If form a^x is not, but 1/a^x is, than I would be able to turn anything exponential into non-exponential by merely changing the sign of the exponent... You can rewrite 1/x^2 as 1 * x^-2 (since 1*a is it's multiplicative identity, 1/x^2 is the same as 1*x^-2 or merely x^-2).
Inverse square is exponential. The square part is a give away for most exponential equations (a squared number is made so by it's exponent, thus an exponent-tial equation). On the flip side I read my post and my stupid iPad changed lots of my words. I wrote, "university or college", and the iPad made it, "university of college". Thanks Apple.
You must have been asking people at a university of college. On the streets, I would doubt most people would know much about the subject at all. The woman explaining negative exponential relationship was also amusing. She is correct. Good video! There isn't much quality science or truth in what is posted on RU-vid with respect to nuclear affairs. Please post more.
When atoms decay they do so exponentially (this is how it is described in science books as it follows and exponential decay) and yet, the exponent changes while e remains as constant as it always is. e^-([decay constant]*t). Are you discussing pure mathematics?
Atoms exposed to the neutron flux emitted by the reactor have their basic particles knocked around (or absorb the neutron). They loose/gain particles from this, and because they want to become stable, they start emitting their own particles trying to return to a nominal state. This is how they become "activated", and are now radioactive.
Thanks for the input! I see, so alpha radiation contains mass in form of (charged) helium atoms, beta radiation no atoms, just electrons and gamma no mass only electromagnetic waves? Does that mean that the charge of the helium nucleus is a consequence of the emission of its electrons in form of beta radiation or am I drawing a wrong conclusion there?
He was right in a way. Allthough emission of alpha particles from the powerplant is not a concern, if they were to penetrate your organism (by ingestion mostly since even air is a sufficient barrier), then they would be the most damaging to you because of their ionising potential (causing heterolitc ruptures etc)
Gamma radiation does when it's not subjected to objects where it would loose some of it's energy and momentum. So in space yeah... It's a might big place with little matter to loose energy in.
Oh my god aaaaaaaa Derek. I was extremely involved with the events of the Tohoku Earthquake, and this was a key topic that was fundamentally misunderstood by people all around the world, including the majority of the people it actually affected at the time. You would not believe how often I had to explain to people how nuclear plants work, what they do and don't do, the difference between radiation and radioactivity, etc. Even though this was a year ago, thank you so much for this video.
Most of the gamma radiation comes from outer space (unless you're a rare isotope of potassium sitting on earth). You need immense energy to generate gamma radiation, like lightning strikes, atomic bombs or the fusion reactions in the core of The Sun. So I don't think you have much to worry about.
Not sure if he meant to do this, but he left the misconception (in my humble opinion) that nuclear power plants can explode. But, in fact, they can't. Not the way an atomic bomb or war head would, at least. If you don't understand the process of nuclear fission, then my explanation probably won't make sense. In order for a nuclear explosion to happen, you need to have a certain amount of the right element to cause a large enough chain reaction. To get that sized chain reaction, it takes roughly 101 lbs of Uranium 235 (235U) and I'm not sure of the amount of Plutonium 238 required. This is called critical mass. Power plants have less than critical mass and, therefore, can not explode like a nuke would explode. The cooling system can fail, though, causing the plant to have a "melt down" where the reactor gets so hot that it melts everything around it. I am not aware of any pressure cooker type system that could explode, however, I could be mistaken on that. Nuclear fission works like this: Say you have slab 235U. This is made up of millions of atoms. One of those atoms bets hit by a neutron, causing it to split. When the uranium splits, it splits, normally, into two different elements, krypton and barium. These are called fission products. When it splits, it also releases a few more neutrons, which collide into other uranium atoms continuing the reaction, initiating the chain reaction. If you were to take the uranium atom and the fission products and place them on a scale, you would see that the whole atom weighed more than all of the products following the splitting of it. During the fission process, mass is lost from the original atom and is not in the fission products. According to the equation E=mc2, all mass has and can be converted into energy. In this equation, E is energy, m is mass and c2 is the speed of light squared. To you could say that energy is equal to the mass of an object times the speed of light squared. If you were to take some kind of mass and destroy it completely so it no longer exists at all, it would be completely turned into energy. How much energy? The mass of the object times c2, or the speed of light squared. The speed of light is about 186,000 m/sec. Squaring that and then multiplying it by the mass of the object creates and enormous number. So a little mass can produce a lot of energy. As I said, mass was lost in the fission process. Lost, destroyed, gone. Poof! Basing that off the Einstein's law E=mc2, even that small amount of mass turns into a lot of energy. And, it turns out, Dr. Crazy Hair was right on. That is exactly what happens! The mass is lost and energy is created in the form of heat. Now, the chain reaction is growing exponentially, so mass is being lost exponentially which means that energy in the form of heat is being created exponentially. With the release of all this energy, it begins to pile up on itself and over lap. When enough element is under fission, or the critical mass as it is called, the energy will pile up enough to explode. This is how the first A-Bombs worked and still work today. However, power plants do not have the critical mass of the element used to cause an explosion. I hope that I was clear and not confusing, as well as helpful. Also, I apologize if I messed up on any facts in here - it has been a while sense I learned about nuclear science!
@toolache you're right in that over time radiation shielding at say a nuclear reactor becomes radioactive and so it must be disposed of appropriately when the plant is decommissioned. This is normally due to neutron radiation more than alpha or beta.
Dir sir, thank you so much for this video. I did a senior thesis about nuclear power. A major portion of my thesis was dedicated to this misunderstanding and what it meant to the nuclear industry. Thank you for making the world more enlightened about radiation.
You seem like you're a well informed person :) Would a nuclear power station when built in quite a bio-diverse area, kill off or cause abnormalities/lack of germination in plants and seeds? Would the Gamma be able to affect them within a 1km radius for example? Just thinking of the potential area of affect of a fully operational plant. Cheers.
Sophistry....your not worried about radiation, just the radioactive atom. Huh? Your not worried about the radiation “leaking” out of the reactor (like when they vent xenon every month), your worried about the particles that (sometimes leak, sometime fly) come out of the reactor. No clarification here, just trying to disarm people from having a stigma of nuclear reactors. He didn’t even touch in the different levels of energy or the different fuel types!! Do you know what mox fuel is? Would you like that venting over your back yard? (I’m sure the plant operators wouldn’t own a back yard near a mox reactor) He also
*Alpha particles* (Helium nuclei) are the most ionizing and most damaging. But because they interact the most with matter, they are shortest lived. *Beta particles* (fast Electrons) are less ionizing and less damaging than alpha. And because they interact less with matter than Alpha, they live longer and travel farther. *Gamma rays* (including X-rays and UV) are the least ionizing and damaging. And because Gamma interacts the least with matter, it penetrates the deepest. The correlation is that the less time radiation spends interacting with matter, the farther it travels and the less damage it does (per unit of matter). There are other forms of radiation too, beyond just Alpha, Beta and Gamma. Seldom talked about is *Neutron radiation.* There are three types of sources of Neutron radiation. Neutrons can be produced when Alpha particles bombard foils of Aluminum or other metals; this is called a *Neutron Gun.* Neutrons can also be produced when unstable atoms split, in a process called *Nuclear Fission.* Neutrons can also be produced through high-energy collision events involving particle accelerators or *Cosmic rays.* There are two categories of Neutron radiation, they are *Fast Neutrons* and *Slow Neutrons* (A.K.A. Thermal Neutrons or Moderated Neutrons). There is a common misconception about Neutrons and nuclear chain reactions. It is commonly believed that fast neutrons split atoms by bombarding them. The truth is that fast neutrons interact very little with matter, thus are unlikely to split atoms. Slow neutrons (or thermal neutrons) are the types of neutrons primarily responsible for nuclear chain reactions. It is a misconception that water in a nuclear reactor is used to suppress (or "moderate") the nuclear reaction. *Control Rods* made of Boron or Boron compounds which easily absorb neutrons are used to suppress the reaction; the control rods are not the moderators. In a *Light-Water Reactor,* the water is the *Moderator* (not the Rods), which absorbs the kinetic energy of fast neutrons through bombardment. The water molecules that absorb the kinetic energy of fast neutrons become hot (regulated to a temperature of about 400°C) and serve to spin turbines for electricity. As a result, the fast neutrons lose kinetic energy and become slow neutrons. The slow neutrons that come in contact with nuclear fuel interact more with the fuel, promoting the nuclear reaction. Thus, exposing more water to reacting fissile material promotes the reaction. Yet another type of radiation is *Proton radiation.* *Proton flux* primarily comes from the Sun as a component of *Cosmic radiation.* It also comes from other stars too, but the Sun is chief. Unlike Alpha particles which are short-lived, Protons penetrate deep into the Earth's atmosphere and reach the ground. When you fly high on an airplane, you get exposed to many more protons than what you experience on the ground or even in a nuclear power plant. The energy of some cosmic protons is higher than what is producible by CERN. If CERN is really making micro black holes, then we should have many black holes raining on us every second of the day. Protons that strike the Atmosphere shatter atoms in the air. The sheer kinetic energy of cosmic protons alone forces fission on light atoms through bombardment, unlike the neutrons that split heavy unstable atoms. When atoms in the atmosphere are shattered, they release a plethora of other types of radiation, including neutrons, protons and in some cases *Muons.* The neutrons released by the shattered atoms get absorbed by Nitrogen-14 atoms which release more [slower] protons and decay into Carbon-14. Carbon-14 combines with Oxygen to form slightly radioactive Carbon dioxide which gets absorbed by plants and eaten by animals and humans. *Muon radiation* which is emitted during the shattering of atoms are particles similar to electrons but much heavier and can be produced by CERN. Protons capable of producing Muons in the atmosphere only come from Exploding stars, not the Sun. The Muons from shattered atoms are also such high energy that their half-life is extended through *Special Relativity;* this means that cosmic muons decay slower than the muons produced by CERN. Since cosmic muons are so fast, they interact very little with matter. Since cosmic muons also have extended half-life, they penetrate deeper than other known natural forms of radiation. Cosmic muons can penetrate solid granite several thousand feet. In recent times, Cosmic Muons have been used to photograph hidden chambers inside the Pyramids and are further being developed to photograph the hidden chambers inside of volcanoes. The technology that utilizes Muons to take photographs is called *Muography.*
The beta radiation is able to pass through the air, but the reading significantly drops off due to the inverse square law (if you double the distance, there is 1/4 of the radiation). So when you go from roughly 1cm away from the source to 4cm away, the amount of radiation at 4cm is 1/16 as that at 1cm.
What about radioactive buckyballs? I remember hearing that energy loss in buckyballs is almost negligible. Therefore, as a buckyball receives a dose of harmful energy or energy that is able to damage cells wouldn't it carry that for a long time call dissipating it over the duration of the energies halfway? Further, I was under the impression that buckyballs are a byproduct of nuclear reactions that take place in power reactors. Then, wouldn't even a slight explosion then release these very small particles into the area and surrounding area? And would not they in essence become an atomic size nuclear reactor? I thought this was part of the problem in Fukushima? Please set me straight. PS I love learning and I love your RU-vid channel. Philosophy = the love of wisdom
buckyballs are molecules made of 60 carbon atoms, it's unrelated to nuclear reactions. You can get some of them in soot from regular combustion, but they're usually made synthetically. you can't get 'atomic sized nuclear reactors', you need a lot of atoms of radioactive material in one place to get a sustained reaction. I don't know what you mean by the energy loss stuff in buckyballs. the way radiation damages cells is that it changes individual atoms in cells or DNA by kicking electrons out of them, so that they behave differently and mess up your cells. you get ions all over the place, the reason it's bad is in your body is when you have an ion where there isn't meant to be one. salt for example is made of ions. something that has been ionised doesn't mean it becomes radioactive.
Radiation: particles of matter that are shot out by radioactive atoms eg alpha (helium sized particles) beta (electron sized particles) gamma (electromagnetic waves) Radioactive: a song by imagine dragons Radioactive: an atom that strong force can no longer hold together and thus the atom releases particles.
would it not be more precise to state :what is the difference between radiation and ionizing radiation? a bottle of hot water radiates heat to the atmosphere but is harmless. the sun on the other hand releases ionizing radiation in the form of alpha and gamma particles, ultraviolet and the such. thankfully the earths atmosphere filters and blocks most of this bad stuff so we don't fry and allows the earth to be heated. Is my assertion wrong? please explain if so
You are right most radiation (Visible light, IR (your warm bottle of water), Radiowaves (UHF), even microwaves(WiFi, microwaves, cellphones) ) don't ionize atoms -- meaning that they don't strip or add electrons from/to the molecules. Ionizing radiation which starts with UV-B have enough energy to knock electrons away.
Yes he missed that important point out which he should have explained. You are bathed in non-ionizing radiation ALL THE TIME AND ANY PLACE ON EARTH. Also what about gamma rays, x-rays leakage when radioactive power-plant explodes/melts built on faulty lines as in Fukushima? Do we really need to absorb radio-active elements for it to cause severe effects? Why not otherwise? These are major concerns of general public and he failed to explain any of these points.
Rahil Sethi They did explain it. It's because the strength of the radiation drops off VERY quickly with distance. You saw him hold the Geiger counter against the sample, and it clicked a LOT, and then he held it just a few inches away, and the clicking dropped off dramatically. You're safe from the radiation as long as you don't have radioactive sources pressed against your body all of the time.
+Juxtaroberto Yeah. The sort of drop off he demonstrated happens in air within a cm for alpha particles (normal thermal energies), 10-12 cm for beta, and 600' feet for neutrons and gamma rays. Watching a nuclear blast from 6 miles away (normal for sub-thermonuke tests everywhere in the last century) would get you irradiated, but the gammas and neutrons will have been reduced by air absorption alone by 2^48 (a thousand billion billion billion billion billionth) times, not counting the inverse-square of distance effects. They never killed a spectator.
So does this mean that every time you leave and go inside the nuclear power plant every people should go to ''shower'' James bond DR.NO style and wash all possible radioactive material out from your skin surface so you can't spread radioactive atoms and material while you spend free time with your family?
That's my whole point: it's said in the video that gamma rays don't interact with much. Therefore, absorption by Earth's atmosphere is very limited. So my initial guess is that the probability of interaction with a gamma ray is similar whether you're in a spacecraft or on Earth. If the issue is similar to that of CMEs, then the problem is the result of a possible interaction between the ray and materials which make up the spacecraft. That result is more harmful to humans than a gamma ray itself.
Some countries actually do this. Thing is, most other countries recognize that we one day might find a use for this waste material, e.g. in breeder reactors or (unfortunately) weaponry. Most of the radioactive waste produced up to now is stored in concrete bunkers dug deep into mountains, which shield the rest of the world from radiation, and the solution is pretty much perfect, given that no one actually enters (or needs the area for something else in the next 100k years).
There would be an extremely low chance of radiation causing that. There are many examples of where nuclear power stations work in close proximity to life safely. In the UK there is a nuclear power station next to a beach and the beach is open and safe for people to use. Yes it would affect them but with tiny effect. They receive more radiation from space, natural sources and the sun than would be emitted from a reactor so life would be able to cope easily.
Gamma radiation is very poor at ionising atoms though so standing near a nuclear power station that is working fine is not dangerous. Melt downs are very rare and it take big failure, like in chernobyl, Iodine build up, removing to many control rods and turn off the safety systems, to cause a melt down. Remember there has only ever been on melt down in the whole world, showing you how unlike it is.
So, yes. The fat man atoms are spread pretty fairly around the world but it has concentrations around the site and down wind (The atoms are heavy so they fall to earth where they're blown) There is even more material distributed by the atomic tests of course. The amount of radiation you receive from nuclear incidents is still pretty insignificant compared to what you receive from the sun and the rocks around you anyway. I won't have done much to cancer rates. It used Pu-239 with a HL of 24,100y
Could someone answer my questions, according to NASA dust particles of the Chelyabinsk meteorite had made its way around the world in days, when "Fat Man" dropped on Hiroshima would the Radioactive Atoms not done the same? How would those atoms affect us in the United States, would cancer be less common without the explosion? Lastly, what is the Half-life of the Uranium used for "Fat Man"?
Cobalt 60 is really the biggest nuclide of concern. The issue is that it has such an incredibly long half life of about 5.3 years. If it is ingested some is excreted, but some will be absorbed by tissue. The gamma radiation emitted can cause cancer. Never fear though. Nuclear power plants are held to an incredibly high standard. The likelihood of there being an accident catastrophic enough to release fission products and the like into the atmosphere is EXTREMELY slim.
i never said that we are pioneering in nuclear fusion. What i said is that we are finally taking 15 years of engineering research from across the globe and puting it on wheels. That research regards the simultaneous combustion of hydrogen and oxygen to create energy. Plus another comment, said we have to produce the hydrogen fuel. HYDROGEN CAN NOT BE CREATED FROM THE COMBINATION OF ELEMENTS! IT IS THE SIMPLEST ELEMENT AND THE MOST ABUNDANT IN THE UNIVERSE
so youre telling us that australia has mastered the engineering of a hydrogen fusion plant? daymn son, where be all dem nobel prices?! You obviously have not the faintest idea about nuclear fusion, the scarcity of trinium, and the engineering challenges in creating a sustainable fusion process. So, while its good that youre eager to share your views, please go ahead and read up on the stuff you post first.
oh yes i know they are two different things but i was making the point that these are two new clean technologies that are going to have an impact in the near future and are very innovative. Hydrogen power will be used for cars and Fusion involves isotopes of Hydrogen fusing to create energy on a power station scale. This is one of the reasons i love living in Australia. we are very innovative when change is needed. We are very adaptive and have history of being a technological driving force.
i think you've misunderstood my point, my fault i guess for not being clear. i'm not lessening the value of a life. you're right that you have a better chance of getting into your car and dying than you do of losing your life in a nuclear accident, but that's not because nuclear plants are safer, it's because there are so few of them. volcanoes are more dangerous than campfires right? but campfires kill more people.
It's cool, you can call me out by name. I'm a big boy and I can take criticism. My argument still stands: One human life is equal to another human life, and supporting one method of industry while disregarding another is completely hypocritical. Allowing cars by saying "Of course they cause more deaths; there are more of them" lessens the value of the individual life. You still have a better chance of getting into your car and dying than you do have losing your life in a nuclear accident.
I agree that nuclear power is not the ultimate solution, after all uranium (or any other potential fuel) is a finite resource. However the statistics I mentioned were in terms of deaths per unit of energy produced, not the total deaths. This is mainly due to the efficiency of nuclear power. So if nuclear power were to replace coal plants, less power plants would be needed, putting less people at risk. Ultimately I believe the problem lies in nuclear waste rather than accidents.
Your argument is correct, in that the statistics presented have no reflection on danger in any way. However there are plenty of statistics which do provide evidence that nuclear power is in fact safer than the most other forms. In terms of deaths per watt hour produced, nuclear power causes the least deaths. On the other hand, coal, the most common form, causes the most. These stats include nuclear disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima.
almost my point. another user was using automobile deaths as an example to say that they're more dangerous than nuclear power plants, which they're not. similarly, although cows kill more people every year than sharks do, that doesn't mean we should be less afraid of a shark than we should of a shark. cars kill more people because there are more of them, not because they are more dangerous, which was my point.
What about dams then? If the engineers of the 3 Gorges dam in china made mistakes and it failed the damage would also be fatally catastrophic. Millions would be affected. Direct loss of life, flooding and sedimentation of mud for kilometers displacing thousands, Hundreds of millions or even billions in property damage, power outages. Should we halt the construction of dams too because the engineers might make mistakes?
also it's important to remember that there are different kinds of radiation, and some aren't dangerous at all, passing right through our bodies with no effect. that's why we have a few different measurements of radiation, to tell us how much total radiation there is, or how much biological effect there will be. under this scale too more weight is given to more damaging radiation, so it will read higher even if there is less of it.
you're right but maybe not as right as many people think. you also need to take into account the sphere of effect. a very large portion of the population spends many hours per day in a car, but not so many where they could be influenced by a nuclear disaster. the same mistake is made when deeming cows more dangerous than sharks. similarly, nuclear plants are not more dangerous than cars, but if they covered the planet like cars they would be.
Because it is not likely to die in an accident. We have 50 million cars in germany, but only about 3000-4000 deads per year. And one accident influenzes only a tiny area for a short period of time and a very limited number of people. An accident in a nuclear power plant influences many people. In 1986 maybe only 4000 people died, but things like cancer and traumatisation have to be also taken into account. And so the number of affected persons is far to high for 437 nuclear power plants!
