/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10524303]

Can someone explain to me in clear unambiguous terms EXACTLY what radiation is?

[Anonymous No.10524317]

>>10524303
In the most general sense, energy that propagates away from something and which can move in free space (eg, not sound waves)

Usually refers to particles moving near or at light speed

[Anonymous No.10524320]

alfa: helium nucleus
beta: electron
gamma: photon with high frequency

newest in cancer treatment: proton
https://youtu.be/8Xd42veg7KY

[Anonymous No.10524331]

>>10524303
Unstable elements release energy to get to a steady state in the form of radiation. This energy is radiation in the form of: alpha decay, beta decay, or gamma release. Radiation imparted on human cells can cause death or altered behavior

[Anonymous No.10524343]

>>10524317
>>10524320
Thank you for answerinng me.

>>10524331
Thank you too, but you mentioned my next question. Whys radiation harmful to living tissue?

Also, I thought radiation was particles with mass, not just high speed energy. WHich is it?

[Anonymous No.10524372]

>>10524343
Radiation it essentially just energy being released from an unstable source. It can be massless, in the form of electromagnetic radiation, or have mass in the form of alpha and beta radiation.

Depending on the energy of the radiation being released, differing degrees of damage will result to living tissue. UV light for example, is unable to penetrate skin so only does damage to surface tissue. But other forms of radiation are able to penetrate through matter with varying chances to interact with atoms they pass through.

The specific radiation you are thinking of, that is harmful to living tissue, does physical damage to human DNA which and end up in errors in replication that result in cancer cells or even in just organ failure/shutting down because the too many of the cells that make up the organ took dna damage and no longer function.

[Anonymous No.10524374]

>>10524343
not all radiation is harmful, only ionizing radiation. it is harmful because it breaks the chemical bonds of the atoms that form our molecules.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-hfoDy904E

[Anonymous No.10524699]

>>10524303

some sort of ghost world magic stuff

[Anonymous No.10524719]

>>10524303
>Can someone explain to me in clear unambiguous terms EXACTLY what radiation is?

fundamental particles leak out of it

[Anonymous No.10524722]

>>10524303
Is this webm an accurate representation of radiation? Also, someone tell OP about Hisashi Ouchi.

[Anonymous No.10524732]

>>10524343
>Thank you too, but you mentioned my next question. Whys radiation harmful to living tissue?

it depends on how intense the radiance is and what its made of. imagine being exposed to x-rays for a long time and getting a sunburn strait through your body.

>Also, I thought radiation was particles with mass, not just high speed energy. WHich is it?

it's both it's made of boson, fermions and protons and neutrons as well as collectives of them together known as alpha particles.

[Anonymous No.10524734]

>>10524303
Alpha: Helium Ions
Beta: Electrons or Positrons
X-rays: High energy light
Gamma rays: Crazy high energy light
Neutronic radiation: Neutrons
Cosmic rays: Random shit, muons, ions

[Anonymous No.10524780]

>>10524722
Yes, but it is incomplete. Not all of the radiation will leave trails. More radiation is leaving that rock than the vapor chamber reveals.

However, when concerned with damage it can do to the living tissue, it is pretty accurate, as not all of the radiation will react with the issue and do significant damage.

[Anonymous No.10524826]

imagine a lightbulb that radiates lasers that burn through metal instead of light that warms your face

[Anonymous No.10524905]

>>10524826
>What exactly is X?
>"Imagine a lightbulb that X lasers that burn through metal instead of light that warms your face"
Imagine my teabags that gently splash you in the face repeatedly instead of just once.

[Anonymous No.10525140]

>>10524372
Very clear and understandable. Thank you

[Anonymous No.10525148]

>>10524722
This webum clears up decades of misunderstanding thanks

[Anonymous No.10525153]

>>10524722
With it radiating all this much, wont it eventually radiate itself into nonexistence? Or is it the case that once it radiates away enough it will become stable? How long does that take? If somthing the size of a pebble is leaking atoms wont it take thousands of years? And what does it become once its stable?

[Anonymous No.10525159]

>>10525153
>>10525153
>How long does that take? If somthing the size of a pebble is leaking atoms wont it take thousands of years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

[Anonymous No.10525162]

>>10525159
so THATS what that means. Excellent, thanks

[Anonymous No.10525164]

>>10524303
do u mean radioactivity? some atoms are unstable and emit high energy photons and such which is dangerous

[Anonymous No.10525175]

>>10525162
Glad I could help, I'm certainly not that well-informed about nuclear physics, but at the very least I can post a relevant link.
Anons correct me if I'm mistaken, but as radioactive elements age, don't they begin breaking down into less radioactive isotopes as they lose energy? I'm curious about this too now, I remember hearing long ago that if you left enriched uranium sit around long enough, it'd eventually lose all radioactivity and be just a rock, but I'm not sure how credible that is and would like to know more.

[Anonymous No.10525213]

>>10525175
You are correct. Pic is uranium 238's decay chain. Eventually you just have a pile of lead.

[Anonymous No.10525221]

>>10525175
Brainlet here but maybe I can help. Yes they break down over time, this is where the term Half Life comes from. The half life of a radioactive element is how long it takes for half of it to decay.

Something neat worth looking into is my favorite kind of radiation, Hawking Radiation. It's neat and the phenomena goes against what I would think of as typical radiation

[Anonymous No.10525230]

>>10525221
>Hawking Radiation
That's where black holes emit particles slowly over time and eventually evaporate away, right? I vaguely recall reading about that somewhere, with the implication being no information is lost even in a black hole because it will eventually re-emerge, bit by bit. I may be mis-remembering, some anon let me know if I got it wrong.
>>10525213
Very cool pic anon, this is easy to follow, thanks.

[Anonymous No.10525280]

>>10525230
>That's where black holes emit particles slowly over time and eventually evaporate away, right?
Yes
>it will eventually re-emerge, bit by bit
no, once a black hole has decayed it will not come back. this takes a really long time, with the mass of black holes. around 10^66 years or so for a solar mass.

to put that in perspective the universe has been around for ~1.38*10^10 years.

[Anonymous No.10525288]

>>10525280
>>it will eventually re-emerge, bit by bit
>no, once a black hole has decayed it will not come back
I meant that the matter/information that fell into a hole all comes back out given a long enough span of time, evaporating the black hole in the process. Am I understanding this incorrectly?

[Anonymous No.10525306]

>>10525288
yes, the matter is eventually released, albeit mainly as photons and neutrinos. the matter that went in itself is not retrievable, if that is what you mean by information

[Anonymous No.10525328]

>>10524303
Pic shows the whole spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, so the type that is made up of photons/ electromagnetic waves, depending on the perspective (somebody can explain it better).
The upper end (gamma rays and to some extend x-rays) are produced by nuclear processes, as the other anons have explained.
It can be a bit confusing that both EM and particle radiation are both referred to as "radiation".

[Anonymous No.10525340]

[Anonymous No.10525344]

>>10525340
What would happen if you swallowed one of those ha ha youd probably die pretty quick huh ha ha

[Anonymous No.10525372]

>>10525344
probably not
uranium ores are radioactive but not as radioactive as one might think

uranium is an alpha emitter though, so you would likely end up with cancer in multiple places at some point if you do swallow it. touching it is fine though, as long as you wash your hands.

[Anonymous No.10525381]

>>10525372
In addition to being radioactive, Uranium is also toxic, being a (very) heavy metal. A few grams can be deadly just due to its chemical properties.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18188051

[Anonymous No.10525400]

>>10525381
shit, you're right
i totally forgot about the heavy metal thing
thanks anon

[Anonymous No.10525435]

>>10525400
I've heard plutonium is even worse, as it doesn't occur naturally lifeforms on earth just haven't developed to deal with it. It also has really weird properties (a gazillion of phase states, and helium bubbles growing inside from alpha-decay) that make plutonium metallurgy a horrible nightmare.
Uranium (and radiation) poisoning is a big problem in Iraq, where depleted Uranium ammunition was used (it is very suitable for anti-tank purposes). They have high rates of cancer, especially among children. I think Basra was affected the most, pretty horrible stuff.

[Anonymous No.10525445]

>>10525435
>Uranium (and radiation) poisoning is a big problem in Iraq, where depleted Uranium ammunition was used (it is very suitable for anti-tank purposes)
I've heard this before, and heard others call it a nonsense conspiracy theory but provided no evidence as to why they thought it was. Do we just not talk about it because the idea that we knowingly spread tons of radioactive dust across a dry barren shithole makes us look bad?

[Anonymous No.10525448]

>>10525213
Are black holes just massive balls of lead then?

[Anonymous No.10525460]

>>10525448
no
they are the remnants of stars that have gone supernova
they are made of mainly the fusion products of stars, along with anything they manage to absorb

their mass comes from the star and their density comes from the star's mass being compressed to a very small area

[Anonymous No.10525467]

>>10525448
nah, but every electron is actually just one black hole travelling back and forth through time

[Anonymous No.10525469]

>>10525448
When matter gets compressed extremely, it takes on very weird properties and can't really described by the classical concept of elements or atoms. The elemental particles get pushed together so close that they form exotic stuff. Neutron stars and "Quark-gluon plasma" are two examples I can think of.
But a black hole is even more crazy, the matter is compressed so extremely that it forms a singularity, an object physicist still haven't really figured out. It's inside the black hole, the "black" surface is the border from which light can't escape aka the event horizon. If I understand correctly, there are theories that describe the region between the singularity and the event horizon, but not the interior of the singularity itself.

[Anonymous No.10525472]

>>10524320
Let's say I have a small rock at 200 degrees F just drifting in space. I hear that it will slowly drop in temperature due to radiation. Which particle would be leaving it in that case?

[Anonymous No.10525480]

>>10525448
>lead
osmium takes the prize for the densest element, at 22g/cm^3
lead has a density of 11.34g/cm^3

>>10525472
photons, in the infrared range

[Anonymous No.10525495]

>>10525480
Leads not even top 10 in density, even excluding the transuranics

[Anonymous No.10525497]

>>10525495
this

[Anonymous No.10525499]

>>10525467
Based and wheelerpilled.

[Anonymous No.10525515]

>>10525460
>>10525467
>>10525469
>>10525480
Thanks guys

[Anonymous No.10525536]

>>10525445
I haven't heard much about it too, I remember seeing this documentary on TV a few years ago (unfortunately only in german):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGinOcChKUM
>Do we just not talk about it because it makes us look bad?
That would be a conspiracy theory I could believe in. I guess the danger wasn't really on the radar back in the day, as it hadn't really been used in warfare prior to the Iraq wars.
Though I don't really know much about the topic, or if the stuff would still be used today, or if it is outlawed by some international convention. Though, the US is seen as somewhat notorious when it comes to circumventing these (see cluster bombs).

[Anonymous No.10525548]

>>10525536
>>10525445
Oh and Uranium ammunition is also believed to be connected to the "Gulf War Syndrome" that many US Veterans suffered, according to the documentary.

[Anonymous No.10525563]

>>10525536
>>10525548
wew, we didn't just fuck Iraq twice, we'll be fucking it for generations to come. I get that they make damn good penetrators but still, holy shit.

[Anonymous No.10525607]

>>10525563
Yeah the whole issue got overshadowed by all the chaos that happened there afterwards, and also made worse by it. Without political stability there can't be a concerted effort to decontaminate the areas. DU ammo was also used in the Kosovo war in Serbia in '99, at least then the affected areas were immediately cordoned off and cleaned as best as they could, but they still have some low-level contamination.
I agree, it's really fucked up, and is one of the reasons why US (and Nato in general) has a very bad reputation in many parts of the world, though there is no reason to believe other countries don't use it too.
Would be best to get rid off that stuff, but sadly military considerations are often regarded more important than not fucking the earth.
I think there should be at least an agreement like the one we had in WW2, regarding chemical weapons: "We have them, but we are not going to use them as long as our enemy doesn't".

[Anonymous No.10525620]

>>10524722
At about 5 seconds one shoots across the bottom right at a weird angle, what is that shit

[Anonymous No.10525630]

>>10525620
I see that too, can radioactive particles collide and redirect? Or bounce off the container walls? I'm not sure what's going on there either.

[Anonymous No.10525637]

>>10525620
Could be a fragment from the big piece, or just a random radioactive particle.
There is always some low-level backgroud radiation in the environment; If you would remove the large piece you would still get a streak now and then.

[Anonymous No.10525694]

So, goanna have to ask. Is there a difference between "natural" radiation (e.g. from a banana) and manmade radiation (e.g. from enriched uranium) that the sievert scale does not tell us about?

>>10524374
Also, I watched this and the guy seems like a massive sci faggot, unaware of the huge gaps in current theory of radiation.

[Anonymous No.10525747]

>>10524303
>Can someone explain to me in clear unambiguous terms EXACTLY what radiation is?
Yes:
RADIATION = BAD

[Anonymous No.10525748]

>>10525694
If you mean radiation from radioactive decay, there is no fundamental difference in nature, other than magnitude.
Enriched Uranium is made for the purpose of nuclear fission, which normally doesn't occur in our environment (some weird exceptions exist, natural uranium deposits where fission is thought to have happened naturally somewhere in Africa I think, and maybe fission happens in the earth's core to some extent).
>huge gaps in current theory of radiation
Well, granted, he failed to mention that too much infrared or microwave will cook you, but that's hardly news. But those don't break up chemical bonds directly like ionizing radiation, the harm comes from heat.

[Anonymous No.10525749]

>>10525747
RADIATION = BAD.>>> THEREFORE
NUCLEAR = BAD.

NO MORE NUKES. NO MORE NUCLEAR POWER.
NO NO NO NO NO.
BAD!

BAD
BAD


BAD


BAD ! !

ERRRRRRRORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[Anonymous No.10525751]

>>10524343
>I thought radiation was particles with mass
Electromagnetic spectrum uses the photon as the force carrier.

[Anonymous No.10525779]

>>10524303
Two types; Fast, small particles, and short wavelength photons.

Radiation is what happens when a powerful electromagnetic field interacts with a charged particle. In the case of short wavelength photons, those are produced when two strong electromagnetic field sources are moved relative to each other very quickly and in very close proximity, such as the various protons in an atomic nucleus being split for example. Fast particles are made either by relatively slow acceleration to high speed by a really big magnetic field, or by nearly instantaneous acceleration in a much smaller but more powerful magnetic field. Again in an atomic nucleus, if a proton is bumped and jostled for whatever reason just a tiny distance away from the other particles of the nucleus, enough to escape the range of the Strong Nuclear force holding everything together, it will suddenly be shoved away by the now dominant electromagnetic force (as both the proton and the nucleus are positively charged) at insane speeds.

When any fast particle hits you, it's like being shot by a tiny bullet that impacts only a molecule or two of your body. One hit by a fast particle is nothing, but get hit by billions per second and the damage can accumulate faster than your body can make repairs. There's also a chance that something that is fixed is fixed wrong, for example a bit of DNA getting the bits swapped after it was busted in a few places. High energy photons do exactly the same thing, they just smack the molecules of your body around a bit.

[Anonymous No.10525780]

>>10525751
But photons have mass.
Resting mass :p

[Anonymous No.10525791]

>>10525780
no, the photon has no rest mass

[Anonymous No.10525798]

>>10525748
I don't know much on the topic, which is why I am asking. This article, for example, https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914, apparently shows a fundamental difference in manmade and "natural" radiation. I did not read it all, but have been following fukushima news (since in Japan) and saw an interesting article, which i cant find right now, on how manmade radiation is far more harmful than "natural" radiation and hoe the banana comparison was a science scam, funded by the nuclear lobby. I was hoping someone knowledgable could explain more about that..

[Anonymous No.10525802]

>>10525791
Yes, you're right. I'm gonna check myself for brain damage asap.

[Anonymous No.10525824]

>>10525798
>fundamental difference in manmade and "natural" radiation.
there is no difference between "natural" and "man-made" radiation

actually there is no "man-made" radiation

its all natural
we dont simply make radiation, it always comes from a natural source, like uranium. there is no real difference from the radiation of a reactor to a uranium mine. an alpha particle from the nuclear fuel isn't going to be different to an alpha particle from a uranium ore

also the banana comparison is not a scam- bananas contain small amounts of potassium-40

[Anonymous No.10525827]

>>10525802
just hold up a second
you might be confusing rest mass with relativistic mass- which they do have

[Anonymous No.10525844]

>>10525798
>https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914
Ok, that is talking about electromagnetic radiation, specifically non-ionizing. "Polarization" is the property of electromagnetic waves to only oscillate in a certain plane. So, a laser is usually polarized light, it oscillates only up and down perpendicular, for example. Natural light sources are unpolarized, meaning it oscillates in all directions (though optical filters exist to polarize light, common for cameras for example). Also, not all artificial sources of EMR are polarized (a lightbulb is an example of artificial unpolarized radiation).

I can' really comment on the article without reading it, but it seems to claim that these polarized EM sources are more harmful than natural EM sources in different wavelength that are thought to be safe. Sounds definitel interesting.

Now, as far as nuclear radiation goes:
Alpha and Beta radiation are unpolarized because they are particle radiation.
Gamma rays could be polarized theoretically, but I'm not aware of any technology does that. The gamma radiation produced in reactors is essentially natural radiation, in that is unpolarized. Not that it matters, it would be dangerous in any case.
I'm not really aware of that "banana"-story, but natural (radioactive) background radiation exists (and has been here for billions of years).
Life is quite adapted to it, it causes damage to DNA, but it is small scale and cells have mechanisms to repair that to a certain extend.
Of course, pure uranium is much more "concentrated", so to speak and emits far higher levels of radiation that can easily "overpower" the inherent repair mechanisms.
It's a complicated topic, and I am by no means an expert on it, but I hope that clears things up a bit.

[Anonymous No.10525851]

>>10525827
Yes, I messed up the two. I just wanted to make a witty remark, but then realized the whole thing is a bit above my pay grade;)

[Anonymous No.10525858]

>>10524303
>EXACTLY what radiation is?
usually an alpha, beta, or gamma particle. Sometimes it's just a neutron or an ion.

[Anonymous No.10525963]

>>10525844
Thanks

>>10525824
If technology is used to enrich uranium, it could obviously be described as "manmade radiation", even if it was merely the level of radiation that was increased. Your argument is not wrong, but so does medicine never actually heal anyone, its always the body doing it, science doesn't make any plants grow, its always nature, but there is still a difference between a wild growing plant and some gm-onions. I hope you are not too stuck in sci brainwashing to realise they also have very different effects on human health, even if those have not been properly measured or understood by science.

[Anonymous No.10526026]

>>10525963
>being this dense
there is literally no difference in the radiation of
man made or natural enriched uranium.

[Anonymous No.10526124]

>>10525963
Ok, first comparing life forms to particles doesn't really help here, that's an entirely different discussion.

Uranium and its radiactivity is part of our nature, all humans do is refining the ore. The Uranium contained therein consists of mainly 2 types, called isotopes - U235 and U238.
The former one can be used for nuclear fission, the latter cannot. Enriching is nothing more than a filtering process to raise the concentration of U235. At no point does the nature or the properties of the materials change.
Compare this to destillation:
Sugar is produced naturally in, say, grain.
The grain gets fermented and is naturally transformed into alcohol by microorganisms.
Destillation is just a way to raise the content of alcohol, producing vodka.
But, you can also create 100% pure alcohol artificially via a chemical process in a lab. Now mix the alcohol with water, and you have the same product - vodka.
There is no difference between the two products, other than an ideological one - we describe the "naturally" produced alcohol as somehow "better", even though it is the same, exact thing.

[Anonymous No.10526167]

>>10524374
Why are some organisms, like water bears, less affected by radiation than others?

[Anonymous No.10526236]

>>10526167
>water bears
Those Chads also survive getting frozen, and hard vacuum.
Rats are also very resistant to radiation, though I don't know if that's just a meme. Would also love to hear some theories about that.

[Anonymous No.10526259]

>>10526167
because some organisms
>can't survive just fine without a part of their body
>regenerate tissue much faster than humans
our bodies are very delicate, if you were to lose a limb you'd die without medical assistance. on the other hand a cockroach can survive without its head for months.

[Anonymous No.10526272]

>>10526259
I obviously meant
>can survive

[Anonymous No.10526282]

>>10525963
>If technology is used to enrich uranium, it could obviously be described as "manmade radiation"
Not really. All man did was concentrate the sources of radiation. Man did not create radiation.

[Anonymous No.10526293]

>>10525749
Park the waste in your back yard then?

[Anonymous No.10526307]

>>10526293
That's literally what we did.
How do we get it out again anon?

[Anonymous No.10526322]

>>10524320
there's also neutron radiation.

[Anonymous No.10526326]

>>10525620
Could be a cosmic Ray, a ricochet, a fragment of the large piece that separated before having a decay.

>>10525630
Yes or course. It would seem odd however for such an energetic particle to make it all the way to the wall and bounce before making a vapor trail though. Seems more likely to be a cosmic ray

[Anonymous No.10526454]

>>10526293
>>10526307
The sum total of all the nuclear waste ever generated in the United States takes up less than a football field of several feet high. Nuclear waste is a non-issue, can be disposed of safely in containers than long exceed their radioactive half-lives. A complete non-issue.

[Anonymous No.10526505]

>>10526454
ok fine
give your address, we'll be there in a moment

[Anonymous No.10527445]

>>10524722
That's pretty neat. What is that medium they're using to show the particle trails?

[Anonymous No.10527477]

>>10527445
Alcohol vapor. When the radioactive particle passes through the vapor it creates ions which act as condensation points for the vapor to attach to which forms the trails

[Anonymous No.10527525]

>>10527477
Pretty neat. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.10527612]

>>10525230
>That's where black holes emit particles slowly over time and eventually evaporate away, right?
Not exactly emitting, but by having a horizon you cut off frequency modes of the natural quantum fluctuations. Horizon radiation is weird.
There was a pretty good about hawking radiation around here, might want to try and find it.

[Anonymous No.10527662]

>>10527477
>Alcohol vapor.
I'm assuming you could see cosmic rays as they passed through the MIR.

[Anonymous No.10527841]

>>10524303
stuff flying at you at incredibly hihg speed

[Anonymous No.10527933]

>>10525344
DO YOU DO POISON?

[Anonymous No.10528025]

lurker here, nice thread guys

[Anonymous No.10528082]

Are microwave ovens dangerous?

[Anonymous No.10528102]

>>10525472
As anon said, photons is the right answer. It's called blackbody radiation if you wanna look into it.

[Anonymous No.10528119]

>>10525472
imperial photons

[Anonymous No.10528555]

>>10524303
any electromagnetic wave that falls off as O(1/r)

[Anonymous No.10528904]

>>10526167
Different mechanisms for different creatures.
Tardigrades have proteins that are really good at shielding DNA and repairing damage during replication.

[Anonymous No.10528916]

>>10525162
>Someone on /sci/ gets learnt
Brings a tear to my eye

[Anonymous No.10529006]

>>10524343
Radiation causes cancer by damaging DNA and the inner machinery of the cell. Radioactive particle flies into the cell and damages it, DNA is now essentially a damaged set of instructions, cell follows shitty instructions, cell propagates wildly.
Also, energy and mass are the same thing under different conditions. The whole thing really is just a vibrating fractal, and all energy is just the outward emission of one huge wave through the same medium under different guises.

[Anonymous No.10529014]

Somebody please explain why a gamma knife works to me.
Why is the intersection of multiple beams of radiation damaging to tissue if one beam passing through you is considered safe? Is it just an issue of how MUCH radiation is concentrated at the intersection? Can tissue withstand some amount of radiation but not multiple beams at once? Does the convergence do something special, or is it just intensity?

[Anonymous No.10529077]

>>10524905
i fucking lost it

[Anonymous No.10529174]

>>10524303
little tiny machine gun firing little tiny projectiles in every direction

[Anonymous No.10529211]

>>10529014
It is basically just intensity. Tissue can withstand some amount of energy. A single beam with enough energy will destroy almost all tissue in it's path. Less energetic beams won't so much damage that a cell can no longer function or repair itself. So we split a beam that would do significant damage into multiple less energetic beam so that the full energy is only delivered at a particular point rather than along the entire path of the beam.

[Anonymous No.10529220]

>>10529014
This:
>>10529211
3d laser etching works similarly.

[Anonymous No.10529222]

>>10529220
(although it's done by focusing the laser beam on different spots rather than intersecting beams)

[Anonymous No.10529233]

>>10529014
As someone who knows very little about physics, I imagine it's analogous to the difference between a sharp and dull kitchen knife for example. If you try to cut a tomato with a dull knife, you'll crush the skin and flesh and get juice everywhere, while with a sharp knife you'll cut clean through with minimal damage to the object.

[Anonymous No.10529241]

>>10529233
Now imagine a knife that cuts INSIDE the tomato, and doesn't damage it from outside.
pic unrelated.

[Anonymous No.10529262]

>>10525162
[math] \displaystyle

\\ \text{Continuous compounding}
\\ \displaystyle P(t)=P_{0} \, e^{rt}
\\ \text{ } P_0 \; \, \text{initial value}
\\ \text{ } r \quad \text{rate of growth}
\\ \text{ } t \quad \text{time}
\\\\
P(t_2) = 2P_0 \Rightarrow 2P_0 = P_{0} \, e^{rt_2} \\
2 = e^{rt_2} \\
e^{ln(2)} = e^{rt_2} \\
ln(2) = rt_2 \\
t_2 = \frac{ln(2)}{r} \approx \frac{70\%}{r\%}
\\
P(t_{10}) = 10P_0 \Rightarrow 10P_0 = P_{0} \, e^{rt_{10}} \\
10 = e^{rt_{10}} \\
e^{ln(10)} = e^{rt_{10}} \\
ln(10) = rt_{10} \\
t_{10} = \frac{ln(10)}{r} \approx \frac{230\%}{r\%}

[/math]

[Anonymous No.10529289]

>>10526322
He's talking about ionizing radiation and neutron per definition is not ionizing (since it contains no charge and doesn't cause an electron imbalance).

[Anonymous No.10529424]

>>10527933
COULD YOU MAKE A MAN EAT SO MUCH URANIUM HE'D SHRIVEL UP AND BECOME UNRECOGNISABLE AND D I E?

[Anonymous No.10529567]

>>10529424
Excuse me, but what are you planning to use it for?

[Anonymous No.10529779]

>>10524303
Electromagnetic radiation is the emission of photons due to some physical process.

Nuclear radiation is the emission of Alpha and Beta particles, as well as electromagnetic radiation, usually in the x-ray or gamma ray frequencies. Due to the decay of radioactive isotopes.

[Anonymous No.10530017]

>>10524320
Speaking of radiation therapy, does anyone know how sexy it is to be medical physicist? redpill me pls

[Anonymous No.10530091]

>>10529289
The energy of neutron absorption can kick off electrons and directly ionize atoms, and it can make the nucleus unstable and induce ionizing radioactivity

[Anonymous No.10530111]

>>10530091
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_radiation

[Anonymous No.10530543]

>>10524343
“Ionization” is making an atom more reactive to other atoms than it was before.
Ionizing radiation is harmful to tissues because it creates reactions that the cell is not prepared to handle: imagine if suddenly your dinner lasagna melts into your cpu. What the fuck would you do?

One practical example of this is DNA letters in a sequence forming incorrect extra bonds between eachother which makes replication machinery unable to read it. Fortunately we have machinery to correct “can’t read dis” errors, but the machine has a chance to fuck up and put in a different letter. When a letter changes, That can make you totally unable to produce a protein, so suddenly a cell suffocates, or can’t reproduce at all, etc.

[Anonymous No.10530846]

>>10525620
that is when a produced neutral radioactive decay particle (probably a big chunk of the original nucleus) emitted an electron, which left a trail behind.

[Anonymous No.10531085]

>>10525548
The reason, the USAP army used Uranium ammmunitito was that uranium is dense and heavy, so they made it into projectiles to punch through tank armor like high tech, radioactive and poisonous arows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-piercing_discarding_sabot

[Anonymous No.10531094]

>>10524722
It looks like it's pulsing. Like every other second it lets off tinier, more saturating rays

[Anonymous No.10531133]

>>10525435
Depleted uranium is LESS radioactive than natural uranium you find in the crust of the Earth. Depleted uranium has had its more radioactive isotopes removed for use in fission reactors. That is why it is less radioactive. From a radioactivity perspective, depleted uranium is essentially harmless so any illness being caused by depleted uranium is NOT from radioactivity. BUT from a heavy metal toxicity perspective it is still just as toxic as it was before the hot isotopes were removed. So don't eat it or inhale the dust. And it is certainly possible that heavy metal toxicity is causing problems for vets and victims of US aggression.

[Anonymous No.10531139]

>>10531085
Sorry, depleted uranium is not very radioactive at all.