Radiation, Japan, and irresponsible reporting: Part II

22 03 2011

Example of a uranium ore mine, a very natural source of radiation and radioactive material… and contamination if you track uranium dust home with you. (Uncredited)

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.


Confronting radiation fears through symbology

14 06 2010

Traditional Radiation Trefoil Hazard Symbol.

Just a quick note today on radiation and the irrational fear it provokes.  -Take it from someone who works around “rad” professionally in nature and in industry: Radiation isn’t scary.  It’s normal.

Radiation comes from the sun above, the mountains around, the soil beneath, our wi-fi routers, radio stations, and heck – our own bodies emit infrared and gamma radiation, just like radioactive waste.  (Though, granted, at a much lower intensity.)

Micro-waves are, literally, radiation. Yes, you "nuke" your food in a microwave oven, (though there's no danger of making the food radioactive itself.) Microwave radiation is harmful, which is why all microwave ovens are discreetly engineered as "Faraday Cages" - the same protective housings that the military uses to protect sensitive electronics from nuclear blasts.

While some radioactive elements emit particles as well as “energy,” the simple truth is that the same electromagnetic waves that stimulate our retinas (visible light) are identical in form to the elctromagnetic waves that warm our hands in gloves (infrared rays,) cook our food (microwaves,) burn our skin (ultraviolet waves,) check our bones (x-rays,) and that on the extreme end can be very physically harmful to our tissue (gamma-rays and cosmic rays).  Think of them as colors our eyes can’t see.

That’s it.  That’s all there is to it.  Radiation is natural, not just man-made.  We grew up around it, and our bodies are built to take it.  There’s even a fair amount of serious research to suggest moderate exposure to radiation helps keep us healthy by stimulating our defense systems.

So, why the mystique?  Tradition.  Radiation is associated with atomic bombs, nuclear holocaust, physics perceived to be too complex for any ordianry person to understand (which is completely untrue,) and it’s invisible to human senses.  General misunderstanding is the culprit when we really have nothing to fear but… yes, fear itself.

Radio waves are radiation, too, (even though the waves are generally too large to cause harm to our bodies.)

Now – this fear is really getting in the way of some important developments in power, propulsion, and industry.  What can we do to counter such pervasive fear?  Perhaps we should call it like it is.

See the included examples of microwave, radio, etc., radiation symbols that accurately place radiation with radiation.  Enough with the marketing – call an apple an apple. 

Perhaps if we started putting these symbols out with our appliances and various gadgets and at beaches to denote the threat of sunburns and skin-cancer, we’d realize that not all radiation is truly harmful, and that the radiation that is a hazard is something we’re more than capable of dealing with – and that we really already do.  After all, what is sunscreen but a mild, high-density radiation shield?  (Ever wonder why sunscreen is so thick?)

Two cents.

Perhaps something like this out at pool decks and beaches would stress the need for sunscreen? It's compeltely scientifically and technically accurate, too...

%d bloggers like this: