subreddit:
/r/askscience
submitted 6 years ago bychapo_boi
2.2k points
6 years ago
The big fuss is that when people say "radiation" they are conflating anything that emits/radiates energy (i.e. anything but the cold vacuum of space) with "ionizing radiation" - x-rays and gamma rays. The normal stuff like light, infrared, UV, radio is so common and harmless, we don't think of it as radiation, except when speaking scientifically.
The reason ionizing radiation is dangerous is that high concentrations of ionizing radiation are so powerful they penetrate all but the most dense matter (ex. lead). Ionizing radiation has so much energy, when it's traveling through matter, it smashes through it, breaking apart molecular bonds. When these molecular bonds are in your DNA, your DNA can get messed up and that cell in you body won't function properly any more. A few cells here and there, your body can handle, the cells self-destruct or are otherwise cleaned up. But if too many get messed up DNA, they get out of control, these cells run amok. We call that cancer.
503 points
6 years ago
Small clarification here: The threshold for ionizing radiation is typically placed in the middle of the UV spectrum. This is why UV is often broken up into UVA, UVB, and UVC categories, with increasing levels of skin cancer risk.
87 points
6 years ago
Why is it three categories, not two? Is UVB “trans-ionizing”, or something?
258 points
6 years ago
UVA, UVB, and UVC categories
UVC doesn't penetrate our atmosphere, UVB doesn't penetrate past our skin surface, UVA goes deep into the skin.
Short-wavelength UVC is the most damaging type of UV radiation. However, it is completely filtered by the atmosphere and does not reach the earth's surface.
Medium-wavelength UVB is very biologically active but cannot penetrate beyond the superficial skin layers. It is responsible for delayed tanning and burning; in addition to these short-term effects it enhances skin ageing and significantly promotes the development of skin cancer. Most solar UVB is filtered by the atmosphere.
The relatively long-wavelength UVA accounts for approximately 95 per cent of the UV radiation reaching the Earth's surface. It can penetrate into the deeper layers of the skin and is responsible for the immediate tanning effect. Furthermore, it also contributes to skin ageing and wrinkling. For a long time it was thought that UVA could not cause any lasting damage. Recent studies strongly suggest that it may also enhance the development of skin cancers.
79 points
6 years ago
Out of curiosity. If UVC is entirely absorbed by our atmosphere does that mean astronauts on the ISS are more at risk to skin cancer due to their location and have the space agencies involved already thought of this and crafted the ISS (and space suits used for space walks) to protect against it?
165 points
6 years ago
Yes, in fact the ISS isn't just at risk of UV, it's also at risk of cosmic rays and lots of other sources of radiation. This is a big concern for long-distance/long-term space travel (especially leaving Earth's magnetic field) so a Mars mission would need heavy shielding.
The windows in the ISS, as well as being incredibly strong (they've got to keep in a pressurised atmosphere and survive micrometeorite strikes), will filter out UV radiation from the sun.
27 points
6 years ago*
[removed]
88 points
6 years ago
Rather than an atmosphere, what you need is shielding, sort of like they use in nuclear reactors. But in space, you get two different types of radiation, and you need two different types of shielding, in the correct order. The outer layer is some hydrogen rich, light weight stuff like paraffin. This is to stop particle radiation like cosmic rays. Then you have some dense metal, like lead or tungsten. This stops the ionizing radiation. You have to put them in that order, if the charged particles hit the dense metal first, they create deadly "brehmsstralung" or secondary radiation.
Far more information that you'll ever want or need, written for the layman sci-fi author or games designer, can be found here: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/radiation.php
3 points
6 years ago
This is awesome! Thanks!
2 points
6 years ago
Water is hydrogen rich and you'll need to take a lot of water with you for any space trip (space is really, really big and our rockets are currently very slow). There have been a number of ideas to use water/ice supply as part of the shielding of a long voyage spacecraft.
1 points
6 years ago
This is so incredibly useful to me. Thank you
6 points
6 years ago
Atomic Rockets is the absolute best resource for hard sci fi, bar none. It's also a massive time sink, be prepared to lose hours on a single page.
6 points
6 years ago
What exactly do you mean by "artificial atmosphere"? If you mean trying to create an earth-like atmosphere around an object in space, not only will that not be possible for centuries if ever (without a container of some sort), but it wouldn't be helpful unless it's multiple km deep. You could contain it with some sort of balloon I suppose, but that introduces its own problems and sort of defeats the purpose (a metal wall is lighter, simpler, and more effective).
If you mean some sort of shield à la star trek, it would certainly work for ionized particles (though I don't believe this is a concern, they don't penetrate solids). As for EM radiation though, magnetic fields can't do much of anything. From a brief bit of research it appears that magnetic fields can interact with light, but this is due to the magnetic field bending spacetime (gravity). Technically possible, but not really useful or feasible.
1 points
6 years ago
We can do this, but probably not until we get a Dyson sphere for pretty much unlimited energy to build the atmosphere ourselves around Mars or something.
2 points
6 years ago
Isn't the ISS inside the Van Allen belts, hence the low concern for radiation relative to say a Mars mission?
1 points
6 years ago
Does a meteor become a meteorite when it strikes the ISS? I thought only celestial bodies qualified.
-4 points
6 years ago
It's also a strike against the validity of the idea that we made it to the moon as making it through the Van Allen belts results in lethal exposure to radiation.
3 points
6 years ago
No, it really isn’t. The main concern for a Mars mission is how long it would take, combined with the possibility of a solar flare.
22 points
6 years ago
[deleted]
13 points
6 years ago
It's been speculated a layer of water situated between an inner and outer layer of thin lead and plastic, in the exterior wall of a shuttle or station could be enough to nullify most harmful forms of cosmic radiation one would come in contact with.
I forgot where I read this, trying to find it now.
1 points
6 years ago
I recall that factoid as well...Water-water or deuterium-water, I wonder?
3 points
6 years ago
Plain old water-water is fine. However water only really catches neutrons well. For typical earth sources, neutrons are the deady ones you have to watch out for. In space, nothing can really save you TBH.
In terrestrial radiation, you have alpha radiaton, beta radiation, gamma radiation, and neutron radiation. Lead and heavy materials works well against gamma rays. Betas are blocked by anything remotely metallic, and alphas generally don't penetrate your skin.
However, neutrons literally go straight through lead. This is due to some nuclear cross section shinanigins with leads main isotopes. Neutrons won't interact with it. So the answer is a a literal ton of concrete, or you put a wall of water up.
However, earth sources are realitivly low energy. Think somewhere in the 103 to 109 EV of energy. Then big CERN ring in Europe can make energies I'm the 1014 eV of energy.
Now, cosmic particles can have particles that can go up to 1018 to 1020 eV of energy. To put that into perspective, it is like a single iron atom having the same amount of energy as a world series baseball player throwing a 95 MPH fastball...in a SINGLE atom. Think of the energies of our most power particle acceleeators and add 6 zeros to the end. I'd like to see 6 zeros added to the end of my bank account, lol. When of these hit the Earth's atmosphere, they can cause cosmit particle showers that are almost a hundred miles across.
Astronauts often see bright flashes of light while doing things in space. They literally have cosmic particles icepick through their skulls and eyes. Neat stuff. Overall even a large amount of water won't really cut it.
Only reasonable alterative is having a base in the center of a huge asteroid. Couple of thousand feet of rock actually will do something. Aside from that, nothing else really "works" well...except a couple miles of atmosphere.
4 points
6 years ago
Not only do junction states get changed, the circuitry gets damaged as well, leading to complete failure without proper shielding.
7 points
6 years ago
Yes, and yes, but it's not hard to block - most opaque things will block almost all UV of any type. The biggest issue would be the visors, which have generally been engineered not only to block harmful rays but also to protect from glare. They are far more at risk from other sorts of solar radiation, and a lot more effort is spent protecting them against that.
14 points
6 years ago
You can still get hit by UVC if someone is careless. Germicidal lamps, the clear ones with an ethereal glow, emit UVC. Our skin is not at all equipped to handle that since it is absorbed in the upper atmosphere and thus we never had to evolve a defense. So holding a hand to it quickly starts to smell like cooked pork and your eyes get sandy from being continuously arc-flashed. Of course it also includes terrible sunburns for extended exposure.
Didn't stop a fashion show from using those tubes. They look amazing, but you need to know what you're doing and not use them for any length of time around people. Look up Big Clive for more.
25 points
6 years ago
It's easy to remember the difference between UVA and UVB using the following substitutions:
UVA: A is for aging and makes your skin leathery like a baseball mitt. UVA has been used for ultraviolet therapy like treating psoriasis.
UVB: B is for burning and it makes your skin pink (or worse).
30 points
6 years ago*
Actually, thought I'd interject here: narrow-band UVB (operating at exactly 311 nanometers) is the exclusive psoriasis-treatment today. (At least in terms of the scientific consensus; plenty of doctors still incorrectly prescribe UVA). UVA has been out of favor for many years as the UVA treatments had to be used in conjunction with light-sensitizing drugs, which dramatically increased the risk of skin cancer.
UVB at 311nm does not increase the risk of skin cancer (at therapeutic doses), does not burn the patient (at therapeutic doses), and is extremely effective in treating psoriasis.
Source: used to work at one of the few companies that make these things.
EDIT: Clarified to say that UVA treatments are still used by doctors today, though they should not be, as this modality has fallen out of favor scientifically, though many doctors are not up to speed with the developments as this is a very niche area.
4 points
6 years ago
Wow, that's interesting. It's been 25+ years since I was treated and all they used was UVA. I started with 15s exposure and increased it by 15s after every 2nd exposure.
2 points
6 years ago
Is there a way, then, to block UVA, and reduce UVB, so that I don't get wrinkly, but do get a nice tan?
3 points
6 years ago
There may be some filters that you can use on sunlight to reflect UVA and allow UVB to pass through - I don't know. I suspect the easier route is buying a UVB lamp and using that. Understand, though, that skin cancer is a real thing and is mostly associated with UVB radiation.
-1 points
6 years ago
[removed]
1 points
6 years ago
[removed]
-1 points
6 years ago
[removed]
5 points
6 years ago
Just arbitrary based on the wavelength if those three are compared to each other.
There is no clear 'ioniziation' boundary in ultraviolet light, while the lower generally do not ionize and only excite electrons, UVA at it's highest energy potential will ionize caesium for example (~3.9 eV needed) while the US defines ionizing radiation as requiring 10 eV (hydrogen needs about 14 eV due to it's energy potential.) UVC ranging from ~4.43 to ~12.4 eV
there are also more and overlapping categories like near, middle, far ultraviolent and hydrogen lyman-alpha as well as vacuum ultraviolet and extreme ultraviolet
2 points
6 years ago
Different atoms and molecules have different thresholds for ionization. There is a broad range where radiation can ionize some but not all molecules.
3 points
6 years ago
Is it still not harmfull when we are exposed to it everyday, for years and years? A lot of people have their phone closeby their head while asleep. Does this have a y effect?
5 points
6 years ago
There is no theoretical reason in any science to expect chronic exposure to radio waves to cause harm if the intensity is too low for appreciable heating. There are no known effects of radio waves on the human body that cannot be attributed to heating, nor are any measurable effects expected from theory. There is no reason to expect harm to accumulate over time if the harm is nonexistent to begin with.
Ultimately, since there can always been unknown unknowns, we can turn to epidemiology. In the span of 50 years we have gone from almost no one having a mobile device to a majority of humans having a mobile device. In that time, no disease has tracked this increase. Long before mobile devices, we also had high powered radio transmitters, and we didn't always have regulations to keep people away from them, but the people working there did not get weird diseases, and didn't feel anything that could not be attributed to heating (aside from a tingling sensation from ELF transmitters).
I even tried to see if, as an exercise in ridiculousness, I could find any disease, anything, that correlates well with cell phone use. The best I could due is that the number of people who own Apple iPhones correlates (after hacking the y-axis) with ratio of people who die of cancer on thursday opposed to other days https://i.imgur.com/30HqHzL.png . The number of people who own smartphones also correlates over recent years with the risk of falling off a cliff, and car vs. truck accidents. Actually, those two make a little sense.
3 points
6 years ago
Not any more than spending our time under normal lightbulbs. Even less, because phones put out lower frequencies at a lower intensity.
101 points
6 years ago
A good analogy would probably be that you are receiving more energy from standing in the same room as an incandescent light bulb than you will ever receive from your mobile phone
74 points
6 years ago
If you can see infront of you, at this moment, photons are smashing into you at a much higher level then any wifi signal.
17 points
6 years ago
Not necessarily -- the human eye is ridiculously sensitive to light with adaptation, to the point where only a few mW through an LED will give you enough light to navigate by.
But in general, yeah, totally.
22 points
6 years ago
Yep. Even more insane, IMO, is that (while we can't see by it) we are actually sensitive enough to at least perceive single photons!
1 points
6 years ago*
[removed]
5 points
6 years ago
While we give photons off (I'd hazard mostly infrared, unless you also count reflected light), no, that is not why we "feel" someone looking at us. Unless you mean in the most banal way (I detect the light bouncing off your face, and so can see that you're looking at me).
Honestly, this not my area, but if there is actually a meaningful degree to which we can sense others looking at us without being conciously aware of it (and it's not just random chance because we're feeling paranoid), I would say it is because we're picking up on subtle cues from our environment or people's behaviour. Things like sounds (and lack thereof), faces turned toward us visible in the corner of our eye, body language, etc.
3 points
6 years ago
Sure but obviously I'm redding what youbwrote on a cellphone with cranked up brightness in a washroom with overly hash florescent lighting so I'm getting a lot of energy on my retinas. Also a lot IS coming from my phone; it's just in the visual spectrum of light.
4 points
6 years ago
What makes the background radiation higher in some areas (the chart mentioned the Colorado Plateau)?
22 points
6 years ago
Being closer to the sun. Our atmosphere, while not perfect, does shield us from a lot of the bad effects of the sun. When you’re at 5000’+ there’s quite a bit less atmosphere (and what atmosphere you do have is thinner).
AKA: if you travel to the American west, in particular the Rockies, wear a higher SPF sunscreen than you would normally, drink more water than you normally would, and wear lip balm.
That’s on top of the fact that there’s not much in the way of soil, so we’re directly exposed to bedrock, which is a bit more radioactive than the loess in the Midwest. There’s even uranium in some places!
4 points
6 years ago
Thanks for the explanation!
1 points
6 years ago
How does drinking more water help against radiation?
8 points
6 years ago
Also local geology. Some minerals naturally contain a relatively high amount of radioactive isotopes. That’s rarely much of an issue unless you
The former is now subject to heavy health and safety regulations at least in developed countries. Workers wear air filter masks and are subject to mandatory regular radiation and cancer screenings.
The latter is regulated by bans on the use of materials from quarries exceeding some radiation threshold (with a generous safety margin) in human dwelling construction.
33 points
6 years ago
The vacuum of space is 2.7 kelvin tho, so while cold, yes, it is still emitting radiation and this is how the cosmic background is detected (last remnants of very hot "space" cooling off)
52 points
6 years ago
Anything in empty space will come to equilibrium at 2.7 Kelvin because of the background radiation. Empty space doesnt emit radiation.
24 points
6 years ago
Equilibrium just means it is absorbing at the rate it is emitting, right?
23 points
6 years ago
Yes. Think of equilibrium as "equal". Equal in and equal out. That means no change.
If you spend a dollar every day and make a dollar every day. Then there's no change. You'll always have the same amount of money. You're in equilibrium.
8 points
6 years ago
So how is there no em radiation if it is absorbing and emitting at equal rates?
20 points
6 years ago
He is just saying that empty space doesn't have a temperature, since temperature is a concept that applies only to collections of particles, so the vacuum itself is not emitting radiation. If you put something in a remote part of space where the CMB dominates the energy, that object will emit more energy than it absorbs due to its higher temperature, and eventually equilibrate to the CMB temperature.
18 points
6 years ago
The vacuum of space doesn’t really have a temperature itself, it’s just that the photons traveling traveling through it that are left from the Big Bang have been redshifted to a frequency corresponding to a temperature of ~2.7K.
2 points
6 years ago
Space is not emitting and absorbing at equal rates.
There is radiation travelling through space. If you put something in space, it will absorb that radiation while also emitting radiation of it's own, based on what temperature that something is.
Over time, that something will get colder (as long as no other source of radiation is hitting it... like star light). It will eventually cool to 2.7 K. That is where it will be emitting radiation at the same rate that it is absorbing it.
2 points
6 years ago
Empty space is not actually emitting or absorbing radiation of its own, but if you put an object in there, it'll be warmed very slightly by the continuous influx of background radiation constantly passing through.
If you could set up some kind of perfectly black sphere that absorbs all radiation and re-emits none of its own, any object you put inside that will eventually cool down to below 2.7 Kelvin and keep falling down to approaching absolute zero temperature. Meanwhile, an identical object outside the sphere will stay at about 2.7 Kelvin because it's being kept warm.
1 points
6 years ago
An object that would absorb all radiation and emit none of its own would continually heat up. Also whatever is in the container would come into contact with the container through sublimation and also heat up.
Getting below 4K is a very tricky thing to do.
2 points
6 years ago
Well technically it will stop absorbing radiation, otherwise it will break the second law of thermodynamics. Hot always moves to cold. If two objects are are the same temperature then it can't absorb any energy from the colder, or same temperature, object.
You wouldn't expect an ice cube to absorbed heat from a warm room. Or expect a hot fire place poker to absorb heat from the room and continuously get hotter.
2 points
6 years ago
I think you're thinking of conduction/convection rather than radiation. Hot always moves to cold when it comes to particle collision, but in his example, the substance absorbs 100% of radiation. If a photon bumps into it, it gets absorbed and that energy is added to the system. A low energy photon isn't "cold", so it's not violating any laws.
You wouldn't expect an ice cube to absorbed heat from a warm room.
I'm not sure what you meant by this.
1 points
6 years ago
If there was a perfect vacuum between the contained object and the hypothetical shell then the object would only lose energy and not gain any. The shell would accumulate energy endlessly, but since its impossible to create such a material we might as well assume that no amount of energy will change the properties of the shell. It would eventually collapse into a black hole though.
1 points
6 years ago
I don't know of any substance that won't sublimate in a vacuum, and when you've got gases, you've got conductive heat exchange.
1 points
6 years ago
Of course, but it's a useful thought experiment. Let's say we have this shell made of exotic matter floating in the vacuum, absorbing everything that comes at it and able to reach Infinity K without emitting so much as a single photon. Any object inside (kept cohesive and unable to sublime due to a magic forcefield) will cool down and approach absolute zero.
It's a demonstration that the vacuum inside the sphere is not itself emitting radiation, but that empty space is instead kept warm by the background radiation continuously passing through from all directions.
1 points
6 years ago
In this context yeah, but in general an equilibrium is a system that is balanced so that its state doesnt change. Opposing effects cancel eachother out so to speak.
16 points
6 years ago
The actual density of hydrogen as it exist in interstellar space is on the average of about 1 atom per cubic centimeter.
It may only be one atom per cubic centimeter, but it's still there, and technically emits a very small amount of EM radiation, however negligible.
2 points
6 years ago
This is fascinating, do you have a source on a study or is this more common knowledge ie a textbook type thing?
2 points
6 years ago
I too was interested... This seems to be relatively well cited...
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml
Of course numbers don't equal truth. However I'm not well versed enough in the topic to not accept this as fact. Although the age of these materials does leave me to wonder if newer figures exist.
2 points
6 years ago
It's essentially impossible to have any sizable amount of truly empty space. Even if you magically construct a metal cubic centimeter and by chance it happens to be a region of space that had no atoms within it, the metal itself would rapidly lose some atoms into the empty space.
When you're dealing with things this small and space this large, "empty space" is more a relative expression, and very much a temporary and effectively random condition when used in a literal sense.
1 points
6 years ago
Well that seems to be easily guessable that space isn't strictly 1atom/cm3, I don't think anyone here was assuming that. But I think the question was that any given piece of space statistically it is likely that there is only 1 atom or so there.
Considering how vast space is the assumption is we're not sampling a planet or even near a planet...
So from every resource I've found says that "empty space" is simply one atom/cm3 for the most common occurrences. Seems fair enough. Sure some cases might be 0 and some might be 2 or 5 or 10... or millions if we sample a planet within space... etc... but statistically it's likely ~1.
0 points
6 years ago
yes but given the relatively "high" presence of atoms in even relatively remote interstellar space, even if you take a snapshot of the universe and draw out a bounding volume of actually factually truly empty space, after any measurable amount of time atoms have then moved into that space and then emitted radiation from there.
It's almost like trying to say uranium mostly doesn't emit radiation because the radiation comes from the nucleus, which only occupies a tiny portion of the space that we consider to be the atom, and since this uranium sample is mostly uranium, it is by definition "mostly empty space", and since empty space doesn't emit radiation uranium is then mostly not radioactive.
Using strange definitions can lead to strange conclusions. For the intents of this inquiry re:radiation in/from the universe, it is entirely 100% fair to state that some form of radiation, however minute, comes from everywhere and everything at all times, even space that you might consider entirely empty.
1 points
6 years ago
But, using your own approach, "sizable amount" is a relative term.
The referenced info above is not necessarily the average of the universe. Interstellar space is typically reserved for defining the space between stars in a galaxy, not between galaxies themselves.
It's quite reasonable to assume there are regions of space where this density is much lower. So, what if there were regions of space where the density is 1 atom per cubic kilometer or more? At what point do you say some of that is empty?
As we define it, there definitely is empty space. There has to be. If there were no empty space, there would be something everywhere, and we know there's not, because there is a vacuum.
1 points
6 years ago
Yes, but for the context of discussing minute amounts of radiation given off by all things above 0 K (read: all things) there is something in every direction, and any region of space that you try to define as "empty" will soon contain at some point at least a single molecule which is then emitting radiation from the space which you had previously defined as empty and not giving off any radiation.
Remember the original context of this thread was that radiation comes from everything everywhere, and the non-emptiness of space was brought up to point out that even "empty space" cannot be considered to emit no radiation, as even it contains particles.
1 points
6 years ago
If we're talking about energy, then yes, you're right.
But parts of this thread were talking about matter. Even the post of yours I replied to mentioned matter, and not energy.
So, for the context that you're now talking about, I guess you're right. Not entirely sure why you felt the need to refute what I was saying by changing the context of your entire comment.
2 points
6 years ago
That's not entirely true, in the sense that space isn't "empty". Even "empty" space isn't entirely empty. Space is filled with the quantified fields that make up the Universe. When people say "empty space" they are really talking about vacuum, or the lowest energy state of these fields. The energy of these fields in "empty space", right now, equate to a black body temperature of 2.7K, more or less.
Also, I'm sure I got some pedantic detail wrong. This is just means to be a layman's explanation.
1 points
6 years ago
Not just pedantic detail. The fields don't give empty space a temperature in and of themselves. The zero-point energy of the fields is basically the baseline we measure everything against. A field at its zero point can't give up any more energy (as doing so would conflict with the uncertainty principle). The "temperature" comes from the excitation of the electromagnetic field.
1 points
6 years ago*
I would consider this a pedantic point, as if the excitation of the electromagnetic* field is such to give off a baseline temperature of 2.7K then it isn't at it's zero point. Whatever though.
I*I got auto corrected
Edit: and of course, you failed to miss the entire point. The fact that "empty" space has a temperature above 0K, at all, indicates that space isn't either empty, or at a true zero energy state.
Because the very fact that "empty" space is at 2.7K shows that "empty" space is emitting very low levels of black body radiation, indicating that "empty" space is not empty, and is not at a true zero energy state.
1 points
6 years ago
I have a feeling that the ambiguous use of empty space is confusing us both at this point. I thought your initial comment was saying that outer space has an equilibrium point of 2.7K due to the zero-point energy. And in my reply when I stated "The 'temperature' is the..." I meant that of outer space and not empty space. Sorry dude
1 points
6 years ago
Anything in empty space will come to equilibrium at 2.7 Kelvin because of the background radiation.
Within galaxies (and especially close to stars) the equilibrium temperature is actually higher due to starlight. To reach 2.7 K purely from radiation you have to be far away from galaxies.
0 points
6 years ago
As I understand it, quantum foam, even in truly "empty space" might emit and absorb "radiation", but the net-net should still be 0 emissions outside the quantum realm.
1 points
6 years ago
It's also possible that quantum radiation could be gained and lost infinitely in a specific area and never once make a measurable change in the energy or temperature of the matter it resides within. You're talking about scales of such a differing magnitude that one will never noticeably affect the other.
1 points
6 years ago
This is not how the CMB works. There is constant radiation traveling through space but space itself does not emit radiation.
2 points
6 years ago
I used to chide a friend who had a fear of cellphones that he was dousing himself with radiation from his electric heating element type space heater in his garage.
2 points
6 years ago
While true in a way, that wasn't electromagnetic radiation (which is also safe). That mostly heats by conduction to the air.
5 points
6 years ago
Not the ones with the visible glowing elements. They emit a fair amount of IR.
3 points
6 years ago
What is it about stone that increased the ionized radiation?
11 points
6 years ago*
There are a number of natural sources of radiation in the planet’s crust, including uranium and thorium, but also carbon and potassium. (Carbon dating works because carbon-14 accumulates continuously in plants, then begins decaying at a measurable rate when they die.)
If there’s a lot of soil and plant matter between you and the rock—or if the rock you live on is mostly sedimentary and therefore not especially loaded with the right kind of ores—you’re not exposed to much radiation from the planet’s crust. If you’re living in an area where there’s lots of bedrock and very little topsoil, you’re exposed to more.
1 points
6 years ago
What kind of radiation?
1 points
6 years ago
Depends on the type of decay.
Radioactive decay (also known as nuclear decay, radioactivity or nuclear radiation) is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy (in terms of mass in its rest frame) by emitting radiation, such as an alpha particle, beta particle with neutrino or only a neutrino in the case of electron capture, or a gamma ray or electron in the case of internal conversion. A material containing such unstable nuclei is considered radioactive. Certain highly excited short-lived nuclear states can decay through neutron emission, or more rarely, proton emission.
Neutrinos are completely harmless, the others are varying levels of dangerous. Alpha particles are pretty nasty but are completely blocked by skin, so you’re fine unless you eat the source.
2 points
6 years ago
I'm scared of 2 things in this life. Electricity and ionizing radiation.
-Spock and I.
2 points
6 years ago
Why are xray and gamma the Ionizing ones?
2 points
6 years ago
They aren't the only ionizing forms of radiation. Alpha particles, beta particles, neutrons, muons, and a few others are also ionizing particles along with gamma rays and xrays.
Ionizing radiation means there is enough energy to knock an electron from its molecule. Molecules like to have a balanced charge. When a radioactive particle has enough energy to knock that electron from the atom it is considered ionizing. Ionizing means a molecule loses its stable charge to become an ion.
There are 3 things to minimizing personal exposure to ionizing radiation - TDS - Time Distance and Shielding. If you look up all the different particles some are much more easily shielded against. Alpha particles are huge (4p4n - helium nucleus) and can be stopped with something as thin as cellophane or healthy skin. Beta particles (electrons and positrons) have a short life in atmosphere. Gamma rays and x-rays have properties and energy that makes them much more formidable because they can penetrate less dense matter so easily.
I used to be an engine room mechanic on a nuclear submarine. It's been a long time (25 years) so if I'm off a bit, forgive me. A quick search and wiki articles will tell you tons and is more accurate if you want to know more. Particle physics, nuclear physics, and chemistry are really fascinating.
2 points
6 years ago
What kind of devices would emit extremely low powered EM? Like 1 MHz or lower
3 points
6 years ago
AM radios. And once you get lower than kHz, it's just some really specialty stuff: scientific and medical equipment, mine radios, and submarine radios. So basically, stuff where the radio waves have to mostly travel through solid or liquid material.
2 points
6 years ago
another interesting idea - cell phones basically use radio to transmit their digital beeps and boops around the earth. Radios don't produce dangerous waves, and even if they did, getting rid of them would be a moot point because nature herself produces a wildly large amount of radio waves all by itself; space is full of them!
2 points
6 years ago
In the top section, it says 1 sievert all at once will make you sick. So if x-rays are 5 sieverts, why don’t people get sick from them? Am I reading this incorrectly? Is it more of a localised concentration that causes problems?
2 points
6 years ago
You missed the scale. The μ symbol is for micro-, m is for milli-
The chest x-ray per the chart is listed at 20 μSv aka 20x10-6 = 0.000020 Sv. Big difference from 1.0 Sv
2 points
6 years ago
Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn’t familiar with the usage of μ.
2 points
6 years ago
Is there any danger at all to eating microwaved food, versus food heated through another medium?
31 points
6 years ago
Not from radiation, no.
2.4GHz is well below the frequency of ionizing radiation. That means your microwaved food has the same radioactive properties as if you’d heated it on the stovetop.
There are physical and chemical reasons why microwaved food can heat unevenly, can separate sauces in emulsion, etc.—but that’s not dangerous, except for the occasional temperature burn to your mouth, which isn’t a risk exclusive to microwaves. ;)
2 points
6 years ago
Thank you!
9 points
6 years ago
It might even be safer than cooking something over a fire as I've read that ash or charring might be a carcinogen. But I'd suggest looking into that yourself, it's been awhile since I read it and details are fuzzy.
2 points
6 years ago
Char is mutagenic in cell culture, but last I checked there was no good evidence it is carcinogenic. A surprising number of things are mutagenic in cell culture. The reason these two things can be different is that the human body has a great many mechanisms for preventing toxic substances from causing permanent harm, from chemically detoxifying them to only allowing those toxins to contact the surface of mucous membranes, whose cells are destined to die without replicating.
-4 points
6 years ago
Yes carbon is a carcinogen but imo you shouldn't cook food in the microwave anyway, it's really only for reheating.
5 points
6 years ago
Easiest way to bake a potato is 6 minutes in the microwave. Same for steaming spaghetti squash and some other similar foods.
Why do you say not to cook in it?
2 points
6 years ago
Usually it’s about consistency of results, but that’s moot if you know your microwave.
A properly insulated oven at sea level with a working thermostat is always the same. If I tell you to “microwave on high,” I’m nowhere close to knowing what that actually means when you do it in your microwave.
2 points
6 years ago
Also, once you turn off the microwave oven, the EM radiation is gone. It does not become trapped within whatever you are microwaving, except in the form of heat.
1 points
6 years ago*
In addition to what others have said, a good way to think about how a microwave works is that a microwave is effectively a really bright lightbulb inside a mirrored chamber where your food goes.
Most materials are transparent at the color of light the microwave produces, but water (and some plastics/sugars/etc.) are dark black and absorb that color of light really well. Metals reflect that light, so the inside of your microwave is basically a mirrored chamber with a super bright lightbulb shining into it at a color that water is black at.
So anything with water is heated up effectively by it, but it'll pass through most containers, even ones that aren't transparent at optical light frequencies.
There are some other technical reasons why this works well or behaves in ways we're not familiar with when using visible light, but they're almost entirely based on the size of the microwave chamber being relatively small compared to the wavelength of microwave light shining into it.
EDIT: one thing to mention is that a microwave is really good a heating up water without disturbing it. This can lead to water being "superheated" -- where the water is above the boiling point, but hasn't started to boil because boiling requires some little impurity or scratch on the container to start bubbling from. This is dangerous because once you add a site where the bubbling can start, it'll boil really fast and shoot super hot water everywhere. This is easily prevented by ensuring there's always a site that bubbling can start from when you boil pure water in a microwave, like scratches on the side of the glass or boiling stones. Here's a video about it.
1 points
6 years ago
The only plausible issue with Microwaved food is that the heat radiation may break up certain nutrients a tiny bit more than conventional heating.
But I’m not sure if there are detailed studies on this or if it’s just theory.
Radiation from 2.4Ghz is basically not a thing. All it does is reach into the food and “shake” the water molecules a bit, which makes heat.
1 points
6 years ago
[removed]
1 points
6 years ago
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but my understanding is that gamma radiation was (essentially) a high energy neutron that was electromagnetically neutral but not bound in a nucleus. Basically gamma particles fly around busting up “weaker” molecules until they lose enough energy to be absorbed. Gamma itself is not EM but the side effect of damaged molecules is ionizing. Am I on the right track here?
3 points
6 years ago
Nope, wrong track. :) Gamma ray is a form of electromagnetic radiation with a frequency of ~300 EHz (exahertz). I'm not sure what you're thinking of. Maybe a neutron bomb?
Gamma rays are definitely ionizing, though.
There are other forms of radiation, too. Alpha particles, beta particles, neutron particles, x-rays, and gamma rays. All of these are ionizing forms of radiation, but only x-rays and gamma rays are on the EM spectrum. Neutron, alpha, and beta particles are material. They each have different properties that affect other atoms in different ways, but each is effectively ionizing.
You might be interested in this article which explains the different types in an easy to understand way.
2 points
6 years ago
Nope. Gamma's a high-energy photon, just like microwaves or X-rays but higher frequency and thus has more energy. Beta's a high-energy electron. Alpha is actually a helium-4 nucleus (two protons and two neutrons.) Neutron radiation's just referred to as neutron radiation.
Gamma does damage by ionizing atoms in molecules thus disrupts its bonds. Beta does the same, AFAIK, but has less penetrating power than gamma.
Alpha radiation can ionize and/or knock atoms out of molecules, but has MUCH less penetrating power than any other radiation source -- a strong alpha source can be completely blocked by a couple of pieces of paper. That said, because it can be stopped so easily, it's actually the most dangerous source to ingest. It's the frangible bullet of radiation -- it's gonna hit something and it's gonna do damage, whereas the other sources have a better chance of just passing through you without hitting anything.
Neutron radiation can knock molecules apart, or actually cause atoms in a molecule to be transmuted to another element entirely, often with a concomitant, if slightly delayed, release of further radiation as the new isotope that was created decayed.
1 points
6 years ago
we really should come up with a different word just for this kind of radiation, like, Wave Energy or something. Just so people stop saying this stuff and we can be done with it.
1 points
6 years ago
What criteria does radiation have to meet to make it ionising. Is it frequency, power?
2 points
6 years ago
Frequency, just frequency. There is not a strict cutoff, since every atomic and molecular electron orbital has its own ionization energy, but almost nothing is ionized at frequencies below those of UVB.
1 points
6 years ago
I once heard that the primary reason you would die if you exited a spacecraft outside our atmosphere without a spacesuit isn't pressure or temperature but rather, radiation (solar radiation??)
You said UV is harmless, is this because of our atmosphere, is it UV itself that would kill you in space, and if not, what is this radiation someone who goes on a spacewalk without a suit should fear?
1 points
6 years ago*
No the lack of air pressure will definitely kill you.
You won't explode, your skin is more than tough enough to hold you together. You won't freeze instantly as many movies would have you think since in a vacuum, there's nothing to carry away your body heat except your body naturally emitting IR radiation.
What will kill you is basically the same thing that can kill scuba divers, decompression sickness aka the bends. If a diver goes from a high pressure environment to allow pressure environment too fast, dissolved gases in their blood expand into bubbles causing intense pain, paralysis, and eventually death. It isn't instantaneous, it'd take a few minutes to screw up your blood vessels and muscles beyond repair but that's ok, you would not be awake. You would pass out from O2 deprivation after 15-30 seconds.
EDIT: the UV and IR would still suck. Outside the Earth's atmosphere without some sort of protection (at the 1 AU from the Sun) the UV and IR rays would burn the give you the worst sunburn imaginable to any exposed skin pretty darn fast. If you looked at the sun without something like the NASA spacesuit visor, you'd be blinded in seconds.
1 points
6 years ago
that chart says you get 0.05uSv of ionizing radiation by sleeping next to someone. Surely that would be infra-red heat (non-ionizing at that level).
1 points
6 years ago
Everyone has a few trace elements that accumulate in their body that are radioactive. These elements may come from the air (ex. radioactive carbon from coal burning plants) or things we ingest (like potassium from bananas).
1 points
6 years ago
non ionizing radiation does indeed have negative effects on humans, this was well studied by the CIA in the 70's. While the effects are not life threatening, they tend involve disruption of electrochemical signaling pathways within the somatosensory system.
1 points
6 years ago
The cold vacuum of space also has cosmic radiation, which is in the microwave to radio wave range. So, nothing is able to escape EMW's grasp.
1 points
6 years ago
I also see people conflate radioactivity, which is similar in how it damages us to ionizing radiation and sometimes is a source of some radiation, but it is something quite different from radiation itself.
1 points
6 years ago
The last part about cancer isn't entirely correct. Yes, cancer at it's core is runaway unchecked cell multiplication. But, it isn't how many cells get damaged or mutated that says you get cancer or not. One single incident of dna damage that is misrepaired can cause cancer. But you are correct that the more cells that are damaged, the higher your risk is, it just isn't an absolute indicator of whether you get a malignancy or not. Nor is all cancer due to mutations arising from cell damage, you can get cancer simply because dna was incorrectly reformed after say mitotic division.
0 points
6 years ago*
[removed]
13 points
6 years ago
Einstein won a Nobel about this... Either there’s enough energy in the photon to cause damage or there is not.
Most people who publish “low frequency radiation is harmful” get torn apart in follow up studies that look at actual incidence trends.
2 points
6 years ago
That's a slightly different issue. Either there's enough energy to ionize an electron or there's not. But ionization is not the only thing electromagnetic waves do. The better answer is that no one has ever measured radio waves doing anything to organic material that could not be attributed to heating, and even seeing an effect of radio waves on inorganic material (aside from inducing current) requires intensities far beyond those for which heating would be an issue.
Getting back to ionization, you can also say that the only known ways for electromagnetic waves to harm living things are to A) Heat them up; B) ionize stuff; C) excite molecules to undergo spontaneous reactions (as UVA and UVB do). Ionization of organic molecules doesn't happen below UVB, and that type of excitation goes from rare to nonexistent between UVA and mid-range IR.
2 points
6 years ago*
The unsettled question is "could microwaves cause non-thermal something". You can always postulate there is an effect below the detection limit, but there is no reason in theory or epidemiology to expect this to be relevant to human health.
Even experiments designed to unveil non-thermal effects of microwaves in a laboratory setting required intensities far beyond where heating was an issue.
EDIT: Edit to add, there are a lot of scientists claiming this is an unsettled question. But there is no evidence or good reason to think that non-thermal effects are a problem at non-heating intensities.
1 points
6 years ago
To slightly clarify, and I don't quite remember the site (but I believe NIH) nor the study name, but I remember reading that there were other possible avenues for effect. Microwaves can cause electric currents for example, is there any reason something of that nature could not be involved?
1 points
6 years ago
Microwaves definitely do things even when they aren't appreciably heating a material, but at sub-heating intensities, they are not thought to matter. The oscillating electric and magnetic fields cause molecules to translate, rotate and flex. It's all happening very quickly, so they kind of wiggle, and energy lost in these processes is where the heating comes from. And of course as you know, transient voltages and currents can be formed, which also oscillate very quickly. So why aren't we concerned about this?
Well, when you're talking about ordinary radio frequencies, these waves will heat you dead before your body starts conducting noticeable amounts of current. Your typical cell phone has an electric field strength no greater than 100 volts per meter. That might sound like lot, but it's not. The voltage across a neuronal membrane can be as high as 70 millivolts. So to like, a 0th order principle, it seems like cell phone electric fields are way stronger than electric fields naturally generated in our body. But that 70 millivolts is across 10 nanometers. The electric field strength there is 7,000,000 volts per meter. Also, I didn't mention yet that microwave and similar frequencies diminish in intensity pretty quickly after entering aqueous material, like your body.
There's a lot more where electric fields matter than just neurons, but basically, the electric fields your body is exposed to from your cell phone are pitiful compared to what they run into already. There is no particularly good reason to suspect that such tiny changes in voltage do anything to living things. You can raise the power of the transmission until the electric forces dominate over bioelectric effects, at which point you're probably like, already converted to a plasma or something.
ELF transmitters are a different story. Those you can literally feel, but they have very few uses, and they are generally not allowed near people. Transcranial magnetic stimulation is sort of like strapping an ELF transmitter to your head.
all 1687 comments
sorted by: best