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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
@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
Stop disliking this guy for having his opinion. This is a very nice conversation and people will want to read it. So stop disliking because later on his comments will disappear.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What is your career? I'm from Mexico City and I just began to watch your videos, I think, a week ago. And I like them so much! But I've been wondering that. Thanks and congrats for the channel! Is awesome!
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).
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...
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 TH-cam with respect to nuclear affairs. Please post more.
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?
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).
The radiation from radioactive decay has the misfortune of being very identifiable and readily detected. This leaves people with the impression that it must be very intense and dangerous whenever it is detected, even though the amount is so tiny and its effects just about impossible to find in statistics.
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
There are actually studies that found hightened rates of cancer and leukemia around German nuclear power plants, which have a fairly high standart of safety compared to ones in many other countries, even though it is still far from perfect.
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!!!!
Yes. No radioactive waste is one of the most appealing features of fusion. About the dense plasma focus fusion, this is definately not my area of expertise, but I've heard that there are still several problems in fusion that remain to be solved related with the life expectancy of the equipment.
Cooking food in the microwave tends to make it go soggy and ruin the flavor, so from that perspective it can be bad to cook food in the microwave, but it won't make your food radioactive or create radicals. The energy of a photon in a microwave oven is only 9.93 micro electron volts (based on a 2.4GHz magnetron) which is far too low to cause nuclear spallation or ionisation in any chemical which is not already explosive.
"When it darn well pleases to" is the anwser, but what you measure is that half of them have decayed after that time or the counter measures half the initial rate, in other ways.
Not especially. It's actually pretty easy to store but the scare stories about it mean that noone wants it stored near them so you can't put it anywhere.
It's not really about gravity/attracting, but about absorbtion, I think. Earth's atmosphere absorbs much of radiation, leaving very little to reach humans, while in space there's much less matter which shields humans from radiation. Also, black holes actually do attract photons, although it is totally unrelated to our topic - consider this as a curiosity.
Most of it is pretty safely contained. They mix it into chemically stable blocks of glass (so it cant dissolve or react to contaminate things) which can then be stored with relative ease. The pollution from petroleum is mostly gaseous in nature so is nowhere as easy to contain by comparison.
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.
The problem comparing Them in any ways is radioactive affects are hard to quantify, so, true, but we could eventually find that , even with the higher rate of cancer, and any other unknown affects, that it is still fraction to that of car accidents. we simply can't quantify it one way or the other.
It would not do anything in normal operation. Radiation sometimes goes down a little. There is naturally occuring radiation, which varies, and the massive amount of absorbing material in a nuclear plant sometimes soaks up enough to drop it near the plant.
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.
To top that, few of the deaths at Chernobyl (~10) can be directly linked to radiation. Most were from the shock of disruption of peoples lives. The incidence of cancers and such were in the end "not distinguishable from the background", according to the WHO if I'm not mistaken.
the thing is, a lump of radioactive material has a LOT of atoms in it, so it'll be radioactive for a long time, when an individual atom will decay is random, but on average its fairly regular. how long something is radioactive is measured by it's 'half-life', in other words how long before half of its atoms have decayed and turned into something else.
When scientists invent a method to give average people spider powers. The closest thing to spider powers you'll get from radiation is either sterility or cancer.
Radiation is everywhere actually! It's just that the normal level that we experience in our every day lives isn't so dangerous. There's a minimum level of radiation you can experience in about a year before you start to see effects, and the normal amount of radiation that's, pretty much everywhere is nowhere near enough to really effect us.
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.
A radioactive isotope of an atom is one which has the potential to decay and give out radiation (alpha/beta particles and gamma rays). Radioactivity doesn't "occur" it is an inherent property of an isotope that gives it a likelihood to decay. The initial radioactive material in a reactor is (usually) Uranium-238, after a period of time the reactor also ends up containing a range of decay products from the Uranium as well which are considerably more dangerous as they decay quicker.
@ 1:15 'can't really pass through air' isn't clear; being farther away also means simply that you're detecting a smaller and smaller portion of the sphere; you'd have to maintain constant relative size being detected to really demonstrate that the air is stopping it
Photons have no mass, but they still have energy, and that's the reason why they're affected by gravity, although in a very minor way. If you don't believe me, just look at a black hole and you'll see that light behaves weirdly when around one. Also, we cannot perceive curvature of OUR OWN spacetime in ANY WAY, unless we are able to be absolutely independent of it, which would require you to be above our spacetime.
Radiation is just short for electromagnetic radiation, which is simply charged particles moving through space. Light, heat, radio, microwaves, x-rays, gamma waves, these are all the same, but with the bad ones having more energy and a higher frequency(steeper wave slopes). The higher the energy, the more easily the wave can pass through a dense medium, although they also have more energy to transfer when they do collide. The high end frequency can collide with DNA, causing heavy damage.
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 sort of feel like it's a misleading question. It IS the radiation that's dealing the damage, even though it's radioactive material that spreads it around.
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.
Very good. AND, you should have also explained how radioactive particulates can propagate and multiply. Maybe the room full of set mouse-traps with a golf-ball thrown experiment in to demonstrate?!? ;)
Thank you for this video. No that I understand radiation and radioactive atoms, I feel more comfortable about nuclear power plants and knowing about the effects it could have on people working at one or living near one.
I think the decay of a uranium atom creates one daughter nucleus (not multiple ones and thus not daughter nuclei). The radioactivity is caused by the alpha particle emitted by the uranium nucleus. An alpha particle consists of two protons and two neutrons, so the nucleus has thrown away two of it's protons and two of it's neutrons, therefore it has decayed into a lighter element. Radioactivity occurs when an atom emits alpha, beta or gamma radiation.
You should also explain that when nuclear powerplant "explodes" (for example Chernobyl) it doesnt make nuclear explosion like nuclear bomb make. It is hydrogen or too much steam pressure on walls of reactor.
alpha is 2 protons and 2 neutrons, beta is electrons (or positrons for beta+), gamma is just photons of energy. i'm not sure what just neutrons are called and whether they are naturally released (apart from when we make them)
Iodine 125 (half life of about 2 months) is also a problem, since ingested iodine ends up in the thyroid gland. And cesium 137 has a half life of over 30 years, meaning that a about quarter of the Cs 137 released during the era of nuclear weapons testing is still in the environment today.
It is not the journey that matters, but the destination. Speaking simply, you can conduct as much hazardous kinds of energy and radiation as you want to, providing they don't ultimately end up in you. So even if radiation PASSES through you - it won't damage you at all, because it will end up somewhere behind you, mostly in atmosphere.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but Fusion and Hydrogen Power are very different things. Fusion is where hydrogen nuclei are joined together to make Helium. Hydrogen Power is where Hydrogen and Oxygen are joined together to make water.
@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.
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.
Gamma radiation mostly just passes through a human body and is in most cases safe unless it is of high enough intensity. Not to mention the rays from most gamma emitting radioisotopes, although having greater range than alpha and beta radiation, causes far less ionisation to body tissue.
Just because it passes through doesn't mean it's harmless. It ionizes water molecules on its path and creates radicals that chop up whatever they find, and sometimes it's the genome. Water is abundant in our tissue, so the chance of a gamma ray impacting it is much greater than it impacting DNA molecule. Most of the damage in radioactive contamination of the body is done via the radicals, and not directly.
Makes sense. However, if it doesn't interact as much with humans, what are the reasons for gamma radiation to be so bad for astronauts? Is it because gamma radiation could interfere with the space vehicle and then release unexpected particles after that interaction?
The radiation is when energetic particles or energetic waves travel through space, and DNA is made of tiny atoms, so if one of these energetic particles or energetic waves hits one of these atoms can change the information in the DNA and therefore make alterations in the organism or mutations. Sorry for my english.
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.
Even flight attendants receive more radiation than people who work at nuclear power plants every day. Coal power plants emit more radiation than nuclear power plants too. The amount of radiation that escapes a nuclear power plant is really quite small.
Congratulations if somebody seriously had a huge problem getting confused with this terminology xD concept of radiation seems easy enough to understand for me.
I just had a lab work measuring gamma radiation dosage from a Co-40 source inside a lead cylinder. Right next to the cylinder, it was over 20 times background levels, but half a meter further it was back to background level. Apart from all materials and air absorbing the gamma photons, also consider that further away they spread out as they travel in all directions from the source. So no, I don't believe you can get direct gamma radiation from a plant 1 km away.
@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.
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.
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!
I agree with this assessment of yours!
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
@@garyha2650 ?
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.
Sloan the Greater say what?
@@mimikal7548 I am saying that all biological forces should not exist within moleculer or coumpound structures only beyond them.
@@blitzandchitzgaming2584 So your question was what again? Lol
@@k0nk0n I'm saying that life can only exist at certain size.
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.
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.
This is only the youtube channel that I could watch all day long... Great job sir
Same but i am too late to reply haha 7 years you might not even read this
@@CODE7X Time flies ✈️. 7 years Damn
@@abubardewa939oh you replied :)
@@CODE7X Nice little wholesome chat
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.
It's interesting to watch your older videos and see how your style has changed. Thanks man!
It has even more changed now. I love his evolution from being an interviewer to a documentary presenter
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.
@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.
...and the bullets flying at you would be more worrying in the short term than the neutrons
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.
@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
Stop disliking this guy for having his opinion. This is a very nice conversation and people will want to read it. So stop disliking because later on his comments will disappear.
Thank you for doing this video. I've been trying to explain that to people. Radiation versus contamination.
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.
You all better pack up on rad away
Rad-X
I have Med-X
Nuka Cola Quantum
I have Nuka Cola Victory. Beat that!
I'm bringing a gas mask
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.
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.
Very well explained!
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.
exactly 3 minutes? HL3 confirmed
Took 3 hours to edit
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.
you sounded different man
What is your career? I'm from Mexico City and I just began to watch your videos, I think, a week ago. And I like them so much! But I've been wondering that. Thanks and congrats for the channel! Is awesome!
I dont care what energy I'm using. All I care about is the fact that I can charge me tablet
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).
who's watching this for school because of coronavirus
Me
Lol
?
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...
What? Radiation has nothing to do with biological viruses you clueless mf, what does the covid-19 had to do with alpha and beta radiation? 🤦♂️
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 TH-cam with respect to nuclear affairs. Please post more.
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?
it won't be a nuclear explosion but it can still explode. many reactors have a closed loop of water. this can't take infinite heat
Anton Helsgaun infinite heat isnt a thing buddy
No its controled by control rods and reflecters to keep the atoms from going nuclear
There are other things in power plants that could potentially explode - most significantly the cooling system.
i really like this you interview really intelligent people unlike most other shows of this sort
watch the video again, then ask your question.
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).
thy, take my subscription :)
The radiation from radioactive decay has the misfortune of being very identifiable and readily detected. This leaves people with the impression that it must be very intense and dangerous whenever it is detected, even though the amount is so tiny and its effects just about impossible to find in statistics.
We iz scared cuz we iz ignorant. I thought you had figured that one out by now
+Hjembrent Kent Is it funner to be scared than not be ignorant?
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
+Hjembrent Kent idk dude you could just learn about physics then be afraid of quantum physics if you really wanna be scared
Anna Banana I know all about quantum physics nazi girl
Hjembrent Kent i'm not talking about you specifically. and the comment wasn't against you so calm down
There are actually studies that found hightened rates of cancer and leukemia around German nuclear power plants, which have a fairly high standart of safety compared to ones in many other countries, even though it is still far from perfect.
but doesn't gamma radiation cause to destroy DNA and such?
any ionizing radiation causes damage to dna. Such as alfa, beeta, gamma, ultraviolet and x-ray
Oh okay, because I concluded out of this video that being exposed to radiation doesn't affect your body which I found weird. Thanks.
gamma is really weak so it's not that bad
Mister Theguy I thought that it actually possesses the most energy of all the rays because gamma ray bursts from space...
yeah gamma rays have high amount of energy. And they can penetrate multiple meters of lead. Correct me if Im wrong.
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!!!!
going from people that don't know what water is to people that talk about alpha and beta particles.. alrighty then
probably because he was interviewing at a university of science?
I hate when people put statements into questions, it shows weakness.
i understand why, I just had a bit of a shock is all.
because my statement is uncertain. hence the word "probably" because i am not sure.
and i agree, it does sound kinda negative :P
Oh, I thought you were being condescending my bad
Yes. No radioactive waste is one of the most appealing features of fusion. About the dense plasma focus fusion, this is definately not my area of expertise, but I've heard that there are still several problems in fusion that remain to be solved related with the life expectancy of the equipment.
he loosk like he didnt sleep forever
Cooking food in the microwave tends to make it go soggy and ruin the flavor, so from that perspective it can be bad to cook food in the microwave, but it won't make your food radioactive or create radicals. The energy of a photon in a microwave oven is only 9.93 micro electron volts (based on a 2.4GHz magnetron) which is far too low to cause nuclear spallation or ionisation in any chemical which is not already explosive.
hands down you are the best teacher!. Keep it up
"When it darn well pleases to" is the anwser, but what you measure is that half of them have decayed after that time or the counter measures half the initial rate, in other ways.
Not especially. It's actually pretty easy to store but the scare stories about it mean that noone wants it stored near them so you can't put it anywhere.
Biggest concern is to ingest by food or air radioactive particles that will be incorporated in the tissue and radiate one spot continously.
It's not really about gravity/attracting, but about absorbtion, I think. Earth's atmosphere absorbs much of radiation, leaving very little to reach humans, while in space there's much less matter which shields humans from radiation.
Also, black holes actually do attract photons, although it is totally unrelated to our topic - consider this as a curiosity.
Most of it is pretty safely contained. They mix it into chemically stable blocks of glass (so it cant dissolve or react to contaminate things) which can then be stored with relative ease. The pollution from petroleum is mostly gaseous in nature so is nowhere as easy to contain by comparison.
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.
The problem comparing Them in any ways is radioactive affects are hard to quantify, so, true, but we could eventually find that , even with the higher rate of cancer, and any other unknown affects, that it is still fraction to that of car accidents.
we simply can't quantify it one way or the other.
It would not do anything in normal operation. Radiation sometimes goes down a little. There is naturally occuring radiation, which varies, and the massive amount of absorbing material in a nuclear plant sometimes soaks up enough to drop it near the plant.
I can imagine this guy surviving nuclear blasts with a pen and a copy in his hand.
Very Informative....... Some-body could have used these guys to tell the news about Japan......
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.
To top that, few of the deaths at Chernobyl (~10) can be directly linked to radiation. Most were from the shock of disruption of peoples lives.
The incidence of cancers and such were in the end "not distinguishable from the background", according to the WHO if I'm not mistaken.
not to mention its hard to live too close to one since they tend to be fenced off and a good distance from said fence
the thing is, a lump of radioactive material has a LOT of atoms in it, so it'll be radioactive for a long time, when an individual atom will decay is random, but on average its fairly regular. how long something is radioactive is measured by it's 'half-life', in other words how long before half of its atoms have decayed and turned into something else.
I would recognise that background room anywhere! Flashbacks to intermediate/senior physics lab
When scientists invent a method to give average people spider powers. The closest thing to spider powers you'll get from radiation is either sterility or cancer.
Radiation is everywhere actually! It's just that the normal level that we experience in our every day lives isn't so dangerous. There's a minimum level of radiation you can experience in about a year before you start to see effects, and the normal amount of radiation that's, pretty much everywhere is nowhere near enough to really effect us.
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.
A radioactive isotope of an atom is one which has the potential to decay and give out radiation (alpha/beta particles and gamma rays). Radioactivity doesn't "occur" it is an inherent property of an isotope that gives it a likelihood to decay. The initial radioactive material in a reactor is (usually) Uranium-238, after a period of time the reactor also ends up containing a range of decay products from the Uranium as well which are considerably more dangerous as they decay quicker.
@ 1:15 'can't really pass through air' isn't clear; being farther away also means simply that you're detecting a smaller and smaller portion of the sphere; you'd have to maintain constant relative size being detected to really demonstrate that the air is stopping it
Photons have no mass, but they still have energy, and that's the reason why they're affected by gravity, although in a very minor way. If you don't believe me, just look at a black hole and you'll see that light behaves weirdly when around one.
Also, we cannot perceive curvature of OUR OWN spacetime in ANY WAY, unless we are able to be absolutely independent of it, which would require you to be above our spacetime.
Simply explaination, thank you👍
This guy made a documentary about Radiation and Uranium and it’s pretty good!
Radiation is just short for electromagnetic radiation, which is simply charged particles moving through space. Light, heat, radio, microwaves, x-rays, gamma waves, these are all the same, but with the bad ones having more energy and a higher frequency(steeper wave slopes). The higher the energy, the more easily the wave can pass through a dense medium, although they also have more energy to transfer when they do collide. The high end frequency can collide with DNA, causing heavy damage.
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 sort of feel like it's a misleading question. It IS the radiation that's dealing the damage, even though it's radioactive material that spreads it around.
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.
Very good. AND, you should have also explained how radioactive particulates can propagate and multiply.
Maybe the room full of set mouse-traps with a golf-ball thrown experiment in to demonstrate?!? ;)
Thank you for this video. No that I understand radiation and radioactive atoms, I feel more comfortable about nuclear power plants and knowing about the effects it could have on people working at one or living near one.
That machine that clicks when hit by radiation!! It's in rust :D
Need to explain this further. Use the firework sparkler analogy. The sparks vs the stick giving off the sparks.
The term your describing is Contamination. Radioactive particles in an unwanted place.
I think the decay of a uranium atom creates one daughter nucleus (not multiple ones and thus not daughter nuclei).
The radioactivity is caused by the alpha particle emitted by the uranium nucleus. An alpha particle consists of two protons and two neutrons, so the nucleus has thrown away two of it's protons and two of it's neutrons, therefore it has decayed into a lighter element.
Radioactivity occurs when an atom emits alpha, beta or gamma radiation.
You should also explain that when nuclear powerplant "explodes" (for example Chernobyl) it doesnt make nuclear explosion like nuclear bomb make. It is hydrogen or too much steam pressure on walls of reactor.
alpha is 2 protons and 2 neutrons, beta is electrons (or positrons for beta+), gamma is just photons of energy. i'm not sure what just neutrons are called and whether they are naturally released (apart from when we make them)
Iodine 125 (half life of about 2 months) is also a problem, since ingested iodine ends up in the thyroid gland. And cesium 137 has a half life of over 30 years, meaning that a about quarter of the Cs 137 released during the era of nuclear weapons testing is still in the environment today.
It is not the journey that matters, but the destination. Speaking simply, you can conduct as much hazardous kinds of energy and radiation as you want to, providing they don't ultimately end up in you.
So even if radiation PASSES through you - it won't damage you at all, because it will end up somewhere behind you, mostly in atmosphere.
You are right, nuclear power is one of the best sources of energy, not to mention probably safer than petroleum all-in-all.
it's very nice to have a civil debate on the internet for once though :)
Perhaps I misunderstood, but Fusion and Hydrogen Power are very different things. Fusion is where hydrogen nuclei are joined together to make Helium.
Hydrogen Power is where Hydrogen and Oxygen are joined together to make water.
For a video made 10 years ago it’s really well done
@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.
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.
Gamma radiation mostly just passes through a human body and is in most cases safe unless it is of high enough intensity. Not to mention the rays from most gamma emitting radioisotopes, although having greater range than alpha and beta radiation, causes far less ionisation to body tissue.
Just because it passes through doesn't mean it's harmless. It ionizes water molecules on its path and creates radicals that chop up whatever they find, and sometimes it's the genome.
Water is abundant in our tissue, so the chance of a gamma ray impacting it is much greater than it impacting DNA molecule.
Most of the damage in radioactive contamination of the body is done via the radicals, and not directly.
Makes sense. However, if it doesn't interact as much with humans, what are the reasons for gamma radiation to be so bad for astronauts? Is it because gamma radiation could interfere with the space vehicle and then release unexpected particles after that interaction?
Great video! Just a minor point: gamma radiation was left out altogether.
The radiation is when energetic particles or energetic waves travel through space, and DNA is made of tiny atoms, so if one of these energetic particles or energetic waves hits one of these atoms can change the information in the DNA and therefore make alterations in the organism or mutations. Sorry for my english.
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.
Even flight attendants receive more radiation than people who work at nuclear power plants every day. Coal power plants emit more radiation than nuclear power plants too. The amount of radiation that escapes a nuclear power plant is really quite small.
Or any of the EMRs. X-rays , UV do a lot of damage too, although a bit less.
Thank you Veritasium for another approachable and relevant video. Keep up the good work!
Congratulations if somebody seriously had a huge problem getting confused with this terminology xD concept of radiation seems easy enough to understand for me.
Technically, bananas are radioactive.
I just had a lab work measuring gamma radiation dosage from a Co-40 source inside a lead cylinder. Right next to the cylinder, it was over 20 times background levels, but half a meter further it was back to background level. Apart from all materials and air absorbing the gamma photons, also consider that further away they spread out as they travel in all directions from the source.
So no, I don't believe you can get direct gamma radiation from a plant 1 km away.
You ever heard of St. Francis Dam Accident? No one died in three mile island, but about 450 people died when the dam broke
@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.
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.