So, after my last post, you’ve got the subtle (and not-so-subtle) differences between radioactivity (overweight atoms), radioactive material (the material containing or composed of the overweight atoms), radiation (invisible light and particles emitted by the overweight atoms), and contamination (having radioactive material someplace you don’t want it).
Hopefully, you can also see why mixing these up prevents people from making any sense of either the situation at hand or what scientists tell them (when they’re actually interviewed) on the news.
For instance, if a newscaster says something akin to, “A plume of radiation was released,” well, that doesn’t really make sense. That’s like saying, “A plume of blue has been released.” You can release a plume of blue something, be it smoke, confetti, etc., but you can’t release blue.
Similarly, radiation is produced by something else – so, you could say, “A plume of radioactive steam has been released,” and that means that the plume of radioactive steam would be producing radiation as it moved and dissipated, which is perfectly reasonable. However, just saying the radiation part is nonsensical, and further, adds to the terrifying mystique around the word “radiation” …
Radioactivity is just chemistry and physics, nothing more, nothing less.
Let me provide a second example. If a scientist reports that there is “radiation” detected somewhere, you now are prepared to understand what he’s not saying, which can actually be more valuable than what he said. In saying that radiation has been detected, the scientist has not said that they’ve actually found the radioactive material responsible for producing the radiation, or further, any radioactive contamination. He’s simply saying that instruments have detected either the invisible, high-energy light (gamma rays/x-rays) or atomic particles being shed by radioactive material. The radiation in this case could be from the sun, plants, humans (yes! – we’ll get to that), granite, radon from igneous rocks, or something more sinister – the scientist hasn’t specified. He’s reporting facts. -At such and such a location, radiation of a given intensity has been found.
So, what can such a statement tell you? It can tell you from a health perspective how long it’s safe to be in the area where the radiation was detected, but it says nothing about the nature, presence, or movement of the material responsible for producing the radiation. I cannot stress how important it is that this be made clear in the media.
So, for retention’s sake, I’ll pause here to keep these posts divided into brief segments. Stay tuned for Part 3, where we discuss how radiation is truly crippled by the laws of physics, how that can be best (and simply!) used to your advantage, and just exactly why it’s bonkers for everyone to be snapping up iodine pills.
Until then, cheers.