Feel free to calculate the shielding efficiency of some materials by using our online calculation tool! captaincorrosion.com/radiation-absorption-calculator/
+eternallord Not really. The radiation level for the exposed cobalt piece was only 5 times larger than the natural background radiation. Still, I would`nt want to be too close to it for a longer time period =)
This is inaccurate because the source is shealded even when the lid is off the colbalt 60 is not fully exposed. I'm fairly certain of this because radiotherapy/sterilization sources usually emmit lethal levels of radiation when fully exposed. Something like 100,000 times normal background radiation. You can look up "orphaned source" radiation accidents if your interested.
perfect, thanks mate, I needed a refresher on this today, I appreciated the comedy and examples. personally I drank a lot of ethanol this weekend so I am feeling rather mortal, I am relieved to have had you help me with this.
amazing video. a test of how thick a material has to be to turn it "safe" would be a nice. but we would probably have to double the size or more since there would probably be more gamma rays in a catastrophe
Aye, the actual cobalt 60 piece is very tiny and its inside the polymer, which itself is in the lead casing. At a close distance is merely 5-10 higher radiation than the usual background radiation. Otherwise we wouldn't use it for educational purposes.
Also Co-60 does not get so well detected by standart geiger counters, because the gamma rays are very strong and just go through the tube. Co-60 is a high gamma emititer (above 1MeV). If you would use a lower gamma energy source like Cd-109 or Cs-137 the counter would display alot more counts.
That source is from 1986. Co-60 has a half-life of 5.3 years. Your source has hafted 5.471 times since 1986 to 2015. When the Co-60 source was made in 1986 the number of counts would have ben 3,100+ counts in 100 seconds. I just hope you don't use that source for recalibration of you equipment.
half life refers to the original material. the daughter elements can significantly increase radiation aa the source decays. uranium for example is fairly safe when pure but as it turns to actinides etc its radioactive property increase including the penetrating gamma. our of date isotopes are rather a dangerous option
wow i thought pb blocks all the radiation that comes from source nice to learn that and i have one question for you dude if you weld this pb would it be the same?
Hello! Closing the gaps would certainly help but even then you need a sufficiently thick layer of Pb to completely block gamma radiation. In the case gamma rays from radioactive sources, the energy of the radiation is quite low so it is possible to block it with a reasonable amount of lead. In space however you also have higher energy gamma rays from cosmic events and these can penetrate a much thicker layer of a material. Also you are somewhat limited by the budget when you send something to space and as we know every gram sent to space costs a lot of money =)
Wow, where did you get your hands on the cobalt-60? If it was made in 1986, it would explain why the source wasn't so radioactive since the half-life of cobalt-60 is only 5.3 years. But still, very cool!
Lead is quite good for absorbing high energy ionizing radiation. You can try our online calculation tool to see how much it can absorb. For instance, you can try calculate the shielding efficiency if you have 1 cm Lead and the ionizing radiation has an energy of 1MeV.
Radiation shielding in space is a little bit more complicated than that, especially with Van Allen belts. You see, in space there are high energy charged particles (protons, alpha particles, electrons), that interact with the exterior of a spacecraft. As a result, secondary ionizing radiation is created and that one is electromagnetic by nature and can actually penetrate the casing material. Aluminium actually is one of the best materials for that application for a number of reasons; a) it is cheap, b) it is easy to process, c) it has low weight, d) it creates lower intensity and lower energy secondary radiation when hit by high velocity particles (in comparison with tungsten for instance), e) it still does block a good amount of secondary x-ray radiation and a bit of low energy gamma radiation as well, f) it is very robust and a recognized space material. We are currently developing multi layered solutions but a thick layer of aluminium is hard to compete with and in the end it may not even be worth it to use anything else. Of course this applies on small satellites. On space vessels that carry people, you also need to provide additional protection against micrometeorites or have a decent thermal barrier for re-entry purposes.
Love the nixie tube counter setup. Kinda miss using equipment with those in it. Also ime a spurce like this has an interal tungsten shield as well with a pinhole plugged by a stepped tungsten rod held in place by a setscrew. 🤓
Hi, I've heard that concrete is a good radiation shielding material, obviously not as good as lead, but is that true? If so, using cement blocks could work good too? (concrete is composed by cement)
Heya! This question reminded me to work a bit on the online Captain Corrosion radiation absorption tool. Try it out and compare the shielding efficiency of lead and concrete at 1 MeV and 5 MeV for instance, having the same thickness of material (e.g. 10 cm). While under development, the tool is free to use! captaincorrosion.com/radiation-absorption-calculator/
some minerals from a mine in Cornwall were hardly effected by 5mm lead and the steel of my car boot. 5cm of concrete killed it though. i think it is the water content bound in the matrix
In the case of lower energy gamma rays (closer to x-rays) it may be possible actually but as the energy of the radiation increases (wavelength decreases) so does the penetration depth increase. Also, if you want to block gamma rays, then instead of steel I recommend using tungsten or lead. We will cover the basics of radiation-matter interactions in our new science video, which will be published this friday on our channel.
Hello and thank you for the excellent question! The general rule is that higher atomic number materials absorb more gamma radiation and when you look at the constituents of water, concrete and lead, you will see that lead has highest, water is lowest and concrete is somewhere in between. So, I'd say go for concrete with lead - note that the lead sheet layer should be on the side where radiation comes and concrete on the side where you are. That's how you can make the protective layer a bit more efficient as the secondary radiation generated in lead would be absorbed in concrete. Anyhow, the idea with water isn't too bad! if you have large water reservoirs around your bunker and the layer thickness is much higher than you would have with concrete alone, then even water would be quite OK! Also, the good thing is that secondary radiation created by gamma rays in water is pretty harmless and that's why interplanetary transport ships in the future might have water reservoirs all around the ships hull or at least around the section with people.
Tungsten is really hard to handle as a sheet material and its also expensive. And by the way! In the case of nuclear reactors you also need to worry about neutrons. These tiny fellas do not have a charge and can therefore only interact with the nuclei of atoms which means that you need a really thick layer of a material to absorb them and preferably one uses either neutron absorbing materials or something with high atomic number. Now, in the case of higher energy neutrons there is a problem. These neutrons can be absorbed by the nuclei of atoms and form heavier isotopes that tend to be less stable and therefore more radioactive. However! There is a lot of expensive stuff you can create by taking advantage of them neutrons to create isotopes. Also, you can use those neutrons to carry out expensive science experiments. So on my firm opinion you should put materials around the radioactive source that become more valuable over time and can be easily extracted at some point when you need a new car, house or a satellite.
First of all, I am not a nuclear physicist. However, in the case of graphite moderated reactors it is necessary to control the reaction speed with graphite as well as ensure sufficient cooling with water. If either of them fails then its probably trouble.
Aye, you can build a roach city around a space station with apartments, restaurants and entertainment. With sufficient amount of roaches you can block even gamma rays! And if some roaches do die, then they will be eaten by the others. The ones that survive though will undergo constant mutation and evolve into something really really cool!
The term "gamma rays" referring to of atomic decay of nuclei is appropriate for this video. But referring to the realGamma rays which don't come from radioactive materials they come from things that are millions of degrees hot like a supernova or pulsar. To put it in perspective the wavelength of the microwaves that heat your food are about 1 meter to a centimeter, but gamma ray wavelengths can be as small as sub atomic particles delivering an incomprehensible amount of energy. 10 seconds of a gamma ray burst releases more energy than the sun does in its entire life.
Take a closer look at the electromagnetic spectrum - you can see that after X-Rays come gamma rays but the fact is that gamma rays can be in a very broad energy range and it really depends on the process that generates this radiation. The gamma radiation that comes out of radioactive elements is slightly more energetic than hard x-rays so it is on the lower part of gamma rays in the energy scale. Still, the energy of this radiation is sufficient to ionize material that comes into contact with but as the energy of gamma rays increases, its penetration depth also increases. This means that there is a bigger chance a higher energy gamma photon goes through your body without any interactions and no damage is done! Also, you cant really compare gamma rays from atomic decay with those coming cosmic events as we are not only dealing with different energy radiation but also with different intensities. Hell, you don't even need gamma rays to make a laser that can cut through a metal - all you need is high intensity. Anyhow, we will publish a couple more series about the degradation of materials in space due to various processes and the episode published on Nov. 26-th will be about different types of radiation interacting with matter. There you will learn that gamma rays can cause different interactions (e.g. photoelectric effect, compton scattering, photofission, photodisintegration).
Thanks for your concern! Yes, ionizing radiation is dangerous and the purpose of this experiment was to demonstrate how easily it can penetrate even thick layers of various materials. Of course the source that we used, was very weak and pretty much harmless for us =)
Lead (Pb) because it is an efficient and affordable material for radiation shielding. Although in the case of gamma rays, you will need a lot of it to completely block the radiation.
Hah Indiana Jones reference! A refrigerator has very thin metal walls (otherwise you wouldn't be able to place it in your apartment) and therefore it blocks very little gamma rays - it actually lets through lots of x-rays as well, which have a lot lower energy but still cause damage to the tissue. To cut it short, a fridge would provide some protection against the initial blast where a lot of heat is emitted that sets everything around in fire but it would not be very efficient against the following shockwave and would be nearly useless against the ionizing radiation such as x-rays and gamma rays. The damage to the body caused by the ionizing radiation would really depend on its intensity (distance to the radiation source essentially). Anyhow, instead of a fridge one would have better chances in a cellar under the ground.
Doesn't this also demonstrate that gamma rays aren't strongly absorbed by a person? The lower absorption rate of the cutlets is actually a good thing. Also, you should have tested concrete!
Yes indeed. That is partly the reason why X-rays and lower energy gamma rays do more harm to electrons on satellites than higher energy gamma rays - because they are more likely to be absorbed in relatively small electronic devices after passing the thin aluminum casing. However, it should be noted here that a higher energy gamma photon causes a cascade of events upon interaction so if it does get absorbed it can still cause a lot of trouble. Luckily the intensity of higher energy gamma rays is pretty low in comparison with higher energy radiation. Concrete is also pretty transparent for gamma radiation unless it is mixed with lead or other higher atomic number elements. yes, we should have tested that and we probably had a sample nearby as-well =) just didn't think of it at that time.
It should be noted though that in this case the radioactive piece is drowned inside a polymer, which is surrounded with the lead casing. Therefore the charged particles from the radioactive piece would interact with the polymer and not with lead, which creates much lower intensity bremsstrahlung as it would with lead. However, when I look at the plots of Kramer's law, it would seem that the wavelength is not affected. Therefore, if bremsstrahlung itself is also in gamma radiation range, then some of it would penetrate the casing. If it is in X-ray range, then it wouldn't penetrate the casing.
Great video but the other uses are a consensus, a consensus of the established system, and may not be entirely good. - "radiation kills cancer cells" - so does it kill good cells as well, alternative health recognises kemotherapy as a fraud. - "without harming food" - find that hard to believe, probably changes some things especially complex proteins - background radiation levels in the northern hemisphere are several hundred times higher than in southern - the nuclear autorities also keep increasing safe limits every now and then
Well if someone has a really bad cancer already, then there are no good ways to get rid of it any more. Sure with radiation you do damage to normal cells too but clearly not as much as surgical removal of cancerous tissue. The great thing with radiation is that you can actually focus it from multiple directions and in the region where the beams cross, you can achieve a lethal dose for cells - so you can literally target a cancer which is located deep inside the human body. Sterilizing food with gamma rays is obviously necessary in modern age as food needs to be stored for a long time and we cant really allow bacteria to flourish during that period. The bacteria obviously do more damage to the food than the gamma rays! Anyhow if you live in a farm and get fresh milk every day then you probably don't need to use gamma rays to treat food. About natural background radiation there is little one can do (live somewhere else?) and in the case of nuclear and fusion power plants we can only minimize the risk down to a certain point and no more. Oh yes, fusion reactors will produce lot of gamma rays as well as its a natural byproduct when you fuse lighter elements together! In the Sun they are converted into lower energy radiation as they pass through the thick dense layer of plasma but in the case of a fusion reactor we don't have that. Also, having a little background radiation is great as it triggers evolution and it'd be naive to think that the human is and will be natures greatest achievement. Anyhow, in my opinion its great that mankind has found more uses than killing each other for gamma rays.
What about all the good cells in front of the deep cancer? Radiating food necesssary? Modern Age? Maybe you are only thinking about large cities. Storing for longer periods is a spoiled city-type convenience, however what about You know there's much more types of bacteria, the ones that break down food aren't exactly life threatening, especially taking advantage of the body's own immune system, that's why a healthy person on the wilderness is able to survive, nutrients provide immune support, the processed food in the artificial cities is very denatured and lacking in necessary nutrition. This area requires more knowledge from biology, nutrition, chemistry rather than radiation and physics. There's one guy who goes by Dr. Group but he's more than just a doctor, in the early 2000' he had a cancer treating clinic operating somewhere in US. That clinic didn't involve radiation or surgery. But a diet, supplements, physical exercise programme, relaxation and massage. It was raided by the FDA and shut down in a swat team operation, because it worked too good, the chemoteraphy industry had enough. Group then moved to focus on his supplement company, nutrition that should be in the food but isn't, in order to feed 6 billion people there isn't much focus on quality, and almost all the financial-corporate system is designed for profit, which means quality is always to be on the bottom of the totem pole.
Why bother? Gamma rays would go straight through it into the hand and barely even absorb there as it is a low atomic number material, similar to the cutlets. This is a very weak radiation source after all that is safe to use for educational purposes.
A geiger counter may not be the best wisest detector to examine what types of materials to use for radiation shielding. As we know distance has an effect on radiation exposure and materials affect radiation differently and not just in obstructing the radiation but in changing its path. So cloud Chambers and ferrocells should be experimented with to demonstrate how to use different materials perhaps with air gaps to strategically shield from radiation magnetic fields can also be applied in these instances and May demonstrate in a very intuitive manner how to shield for radiation and important subject in space exploration for humanity
Feel free to calculate the shielding efficiency of some materials by using our online calculation tool!
captaincorrosion.com/radiation-absorption-calculator/
Isn't it dangerous to be near that stuff barehanded?
+eternallord Not really. The radiation level for the exposed cobalt piece was only 5 times larger than the natural background radiation. Still, I would`nt want to be too close to it for a longer time period =)
eternallord I’m guessing it’s a sealed source, so no.
This is inaccurate because the source is shealded even when the lid is off the colbalt 60 is not fully exposed. I'm fairly certain of this because radiotherapy/sterilization sources usually emmit lethal levels of radiation when fully exposed. Something like 100,000 times normal background radiation. You can look up "orphaned source" radiation accidents if your interested.
Shut ur bitch ass up
@@edwinbz9889 easy tiger
The accent makes it x10 times better
And I wasn't even trying! How cool is that?
@@CaptainCorrosion lmao
perfect, thanks mate, I needed a refresher on this today, I appreciated the comedy and examples.
personally I drank a lot of ethanol this weekend so I am feeling rather mortal, I am relieved to have had you help me with this.
amazing video. a test of how thick a material has to be to turn it "safe" would be a nice. but we would probably have to double the size or more since there would probably be more gamma rays in a catastrophe
So that source of Cobalt 60 must be tiny or already mostly decayed? 500 counts over 100 seconds seems very low?
Aye, the actual cobalt 60 piece is very tiny and its inside the polymer, which itself is in the lead casing. At a close distance is merely 5-10 higher radiation than the usual background radiation. Otherwise we wouldn't use it for educational purposes.
Also Co-60 does not get so well detected by standart geiger counters, because the gamma rays are very strong and just go through the tube. Co-60 is a high gamma emititer (above 1MeV). If you would use a lower gamma energy source like Cd-109 or Cs-137 the counter would display alot more counts.
You have got guts mate!! Nice video. Try uranium next time. 👍
That source is from 1986. Co-60 has a half-life of 5.3 years. Your source has hafted 5.471 times since 1986 to 2015. When the Co-60 source was made in 1986 the number of counts would have ben 3,100+ counts in 100 seconds.
I just hope you don't use that source for recalibration of you equipment.
Half life and stuff aside, I still feel uneasy going close to that lead bottle xD
half life refers to the original material. the daughter elements can significantly increase radiation aa the source decays. uranium for example is fairly safe when pure but as it turns to actinides etc its radioactive property increase including the penetrating gamma. our of date isotopes are rather a dangerous option
wow i thought pb blocks all the radiation that comes from source nice to learn that and i have one question for you dude if you weld this pb would it be the same?
Hello! Closing the gaps would certainly help but even then you need a sufficiently thick layer of Pb to completely block gamma radiation. In the case gamma rays from radioactive sources, the energy of the radiation is quite low so it is possible to block it with a reasonable amount of lead. In space however you also have higher energy gamma rays from cosmic events and these can penetrate a much thicker layer of a material. Also you are somewhat limited by the budget when you send something to space and as we know every gram sent to space costs a lot of money =)
Welding it would also make the whole point of a scientific radiation source a bit moot
Wow, where did you get your hands on the cobalt-60? If it was made in 1986, it would explain why the source wasn't so radioactive since the half-life of cobalt-60 is only 5.3 years. But still, very cool!
It was probably used for scientific experiments before and now its used for educational purposes.
@@CaptainCorrosion Awesome
@@CaptainCorrosion I want some cobalt-60 for doing radiation breeding, but it's not exactly easy to find.
Where did you get that?
What about Lead, can you test out lead?
Lead is quite good for absorbing high energy ionizing radiation. You can try our online calculation tool to see how much it can absorb. For instance, you can try calculate the shielding efficiency if you have 1 cm Lead and the ionizing radiation has an energy of 1MeV.
Thumbs up for seeing old Nixie tubes in action!
Now that you mention it, I sort of miss the device! It recently retired due to technical problems after working many years with countless students.
Он может отключать на расстоянии устройства?
Great informative video. Do the materials like the steel keep the bad radiation after they're moved away? Thanks for the video.
So them saying they used 7mm thick aluminum for space ship is BS. They could not make it through the van Allen belt correct?
Radiation shielding in space is a little bit more complicated than that, especially with Van Allen belts. You see, in space there are high energy charged particles (protons, alpha particles, electrons), that interact with the exterior of a spacecraft. As a result, secondary ionizing radiation is created and that one is electromagnetic by nature and can actually penetrate the casing material. Aluminium actually is one of the best materials for that application for a number of reasons; a) it is cheap, b) it is easy to process, c) it has low weight, d) it creates lower intensity and lower energy secondary radiation when hit by high velocity particles (in comparison with tungsten for instance), e) it still does block a good amount of secondary x-ray radiation and a bit of low energy gamma radiation as well, f) it is very robust and a recognized space material. We are currently developing multi layered solutions but a thick layer of aluminium is hard to compete with and in the end it may not even be worth it to use anything else. Of course this applies on small satellites. On space vessels that carry people, you also need to provide additional protection against micrometeorites or have a decent thermal barrier for re-entry purposes.
Seriously thought that was human for a split second.
Who wants radioactive cutlets for dinner..?!..... anyone..?
Interesting the lead casing is thought to seal all 5he radiation but it doesn't
Yeah and if you move few steps away from the source, then the radiation level is pretty much the same as the usual background radiation!
Square law
@@CaptainCorrosion oh really? I thought it was linear, not exponential.
Love the nixie tube counter setup. Kinda miss using equipment with those in it. Also ime a spurce like this has an interal tungsten shield as well with a pinhole plugged by a stepped tungsten rod held in place by a setscrew. 🤓
Background radiation itself is pretty high anyways. Must still be a lot if you're even in the same room with the lead encased co-60
Hi, I've heard that concrete is a good radiation shielding material, obviously not as good as lead, but is that true? If so, using cement blocks could work good too? (concrete is composed by cement)
Heya! This question reminded me to work a bit on the online Captain Corrosion radiation absorption tool. Try it out and compare the shielding efficiency of lead and concrete at 1 MeV and 5 MeV for instance, having the same thickness of material (e.g. 10 cm). While under development, the tool is free to use!
captaincorrosion.com/radiation-absorption-calculator/
some minerals from a mine in Cornwall were hardly effected by 5mm lead and the steel of my car boot. 5cm of concrete killed it though. i think it is the water content bound in the matrix
1 meter of steel wall can block them, but I'm not sure if it blocks them completely .
In the case of lower energy gamma rays (closer to x-rays) it may be possible actually but as the energy of the radiation increases (wavelength decreases) so does the penetration depth increase. Also, if you want to block gamma rays, then instead of steel I recommend using tungsten or lead. We will cover the basics of radiation-matter interactions in our new science video, which will be published this friday on our channel.
Thanks for these informations :)
Hello and thank you for the excellent question! The general rule is that higher atomic number materials absorb more gamma radiation and when you look at the constituents of water, concrete and lead, you will see that lead has highest, water is lowest and concrete is somewhere in between. So, I'd say go for concrete with lead - note that the lead sheet layer should be on the side where radiation comes and concrete on the side where you are. That's how you can make the protective layer a bit more efficient as the secondary radiation generated in lead would be absorbed in concrete. Anyhow, the idea with water isn't too bad! if you have large water reservoirs around your bunker and the layer thickness is much higher than you would have with concrete alone, then even water would be quite OK! Also, the good thing is that secondary radiation created by gamma rays in water is pretty harmless and that's why interplanetary transport ships in the future might have water reservoirs all around the ships hull or at least around the section with people.
Tungsten is really hard to handle as a sheet material and its also expensive. And by the way! In the case of nuclear reactors you also need to worry about neutrons. These tiny fellas do not have a charge and can therefore only interact with the nuclei of atoms which means that you need a really thick layer of a material to absorb them and preferably one uses either neutron absorbing materials or something with high atomic number. Now, in the case of higher energy neutrons there is a problem. These neutrons can be absorbed by the nuclei of atoms and form heavier isotopes that tend to be less stable and therefore more radioactive. However! There is a lot of expensive stuff you can create by taking advantage of them neutrons to create isotopes. Also, you can use those neutrons to carry out expensive science experiments. So on my firm opinion you should put materials around the radioactive source that become more valuable over time and can be easily extracted at some point when you need a new car, house or a satellite.
Can you explain how an RMBK reactor explodes, Comrade?
First of all, I am not a nuclear physicist. However, in the case of graphite moderated reactors it is necessary to control the reaction speed with graphite as well as ensure sufficient cooling with water. If either of them fails then its probably trouble.
@@CaptainCorrosion 3.6 rentgen not too good, not too bad :)
Lies destroy reactors
Must be a really mild source
Where you bought this container ?
Hello, this sample and the container are rather old and obtained from the soviet union in the 1980-ies for educational purposes.
@@CaptainCorrosion Can I buy a few tonnes of this? For educational purposes
А сколько Р/ч жмет этот источник вплотную???
What's the brand and name of that device?
How many mCI is your source
Comrade, experiment with beta Ray's. More fun I think
Would roaches block gamma rays? Can Roaches be used as shielding for the space station?
Aye, you can build a roach city around a space station with apartments, restaurants and entertainment. With sufficient amount of roaches you can block even gamma rays! And if some roaches do die, then they will be eaten by the others. The ones that survive though will undergo constant mutation and evolve into something really really cool!
@@CaptainCorrosion yea and my mother in law is one of those roaches.
The term "gamma rays" referring to of atomic decay of nuclei is appropriate for this video. But referring to the realGamma rays which don't come from radioactive materials they come from things that are millions of degrees hot like a supernova or pulsar. To put it in perspective the wavelength of the microwaves that heat your food are about 1 meter to a centimeter, but gamma ray wavelengths can be as small as sub atomic particles delivering an incomprehensible amount of energy. 10 seconds of a gamma ray burst releases more energy than the sun does in its entire life.
Take a closer look at the electromagnetic spectrum - you can see that after X-Rays come gamma rays but the fact is that gamma rays can be in a very broad energy range and it really depends on the process that generates this radiation. The gamma radiation that comes out of radioactive elements is slightly more energetic than hard x-rays so it is on the lower part of gamma rays in the energy scale. Still, the energy of this radiation is sufficient to ionize material that comes into contact with but as the energy of gamma rays increases, its penetration depth also increases. This means that there is a bigger chance a higher energy gamma photon goes through your body without any interactions and no damage is done! Also, you cant really compare gamma rays from atomic decay with those coming cosmic events as we are not only dealing with different energy radiation but also with different intensities. Hell, you don't even need gamma rays to make a laser that can cut through a metal - all you need is high intensity. Anyhow, we will publish a couple more series about the degradation of materials in space due to various processes and the episode published on Nov. 26-th will be about different types of radiation interacting with matter. There you will learn that gamma rays can cause different interactions (e.g. photoelectric effect, compton scattering, photofission, photodisintegration).
So DANGEROUS! Why did you do that?!?!
Thanks for your concern! Yes, ionizing radiation is dangerous and the purpose of this experiment was to demonstrate how easily it can penetrate even thick layers of various materials. Of course the source that we used, was very weak and pretty much harmless for us =)
What was the casing made out of?
Lead (Pb) because it is an efficient and affordable material for radiation shielding. Although in the case of gamma rays, you will need a lot of it to completely block the radiation.
Because stone cold said so. And that's the bottom line.
Thanks!
You are welcome =)
How about hiding in a refrigerator?
Hah Indiana Jones reference! A refrigerator has very thin metal walls (otherwise you wouldn't be able to place it in your apartment) and therefore it blocks very little gamma rays - it actually lets through lots of x-rays as well, which have a lot lower energy but still cause damage to the tissue. To cut it short, a fridge would provide some protection against the initial blast where a lot of heat is emitted that sets everything around in fire but it would not be very efficient against the following shockwave and would be nearly useless against the ionizing radiation such as x-rays and gamma rays. The damage to the body caused by the ionizing radiation would really depend on its intensity (distance to the radiation source essentially). Anyhow, instead of a fridge one would have better chances in a cellar under the ground.
Captain Corrosion what if the fridge was lead lined, like most fridges were back then?
Maby if it was lined in lead
Doesn't this also demonstrate that gamma rays aren't strongly absorbed by a person? The lower absorption rate of the cutlets is actually a good thing. Also, you should have tested concrete!
Yes indeed. That is partly the reason why X-rays and lower energy gamma rays do more harm to electrons on satellites than higher energy gamma rays - because they are more likely to be absorbed in relatively small electronic devices after passing the thin aluminum casing. However, it should be noted here that a higher energy gamma photon causes a cascade
of events upon interaction so if it does get absorbed it can still cause a lot of trouble. Luckily the intensity of higher energy gamma rays is pretty low in comparison with higher energy radiation. Concrete is also pretty transparent for gamma radiation unless it is mixed with lead or other higher atomic number elements. yes, we should have tested that and we probably had a sample nearby as-well =) just didn't think of it at that time.
Captain Corrosion Thank you for the reply and explanation.
Some of the radiation coming from your lead pig could be "bremsstrahlung"
It should be noted though that in this case the radioactive piece is drowned inside a polymer, which is surrounded with the lead casing. Therefore the charged particles from the radioactive piece would interact with the polymer and not with lead, which creates much lower intensity bremsstrahlung as it would with lead. However, when I look at the plots of Kramer's law, it would seem that the wavelength is not affected. Therefore, if bremsstrahlung itself is also in gamma radiation range, then some of it would penetrate the casing. If it is in X-ray range, then it wouldn't penetrate the casing.
how to make Radiation sir step by step. I like science have a good day sir
Is your real name Kim?
very cool !
+Vincent Vega Thanks! Thats why we made this video - got to play with radioactive stuff haha
+Captain Corrosion I am jealous bro, wish to have those toys to play myself :)
+Vincent Vega Yeah! Think of all the time you'd save with shaving xD
@@vincentvega6783 ur sick
Great video but the other uses are a consensus, a consensus of the established system, and may not be entirely good.
- "radiation kills cancer cells" - so does it kill good cells as well, alternative health recognises kemotherapy as a fraud.
- "without harming food" - find that hard to believe, probably changes some things especially complex proteins
- background radiation levels in the northern hemisphere are several hundred times higher than in southern
- the nuclear autorities also keep increasing safe limits every now and then
Well if someone has a really bad cancer already, then there are no good ways to get rid of it any more. Sure with radiation you do damage to normal cells too but clearly not as much as surgical removal of cancerous tissue. The great thing with radiation is that you can actually focus it from multiple directions and in the region where the beams cross, you can achieve a lethal dose for cells - so you can literally target a cancer which is located deep inside the human body. Sterilizing food with gamma rays is obviously necessary in modern age as food needs to be stored for a long time and we cant really allow bacteria to flourish during that period. The bacteria obviously do more damage to the food than the gamma rays! Anyhow if you live in a farm and get fresh milk every day then you probably don't need to use gamma rays to treat food. About natural background radiation there is little one can do (live somewhere else?) and in the case of nuclear and fusion power plants we can only minimize the risk down to a certain point and no more. Oh yes, fusion reactors will produce lot of gamma rays as well as its a natural byproduct when you fuse lighter elements together! In the Sun they are converted into lower energy radiation as they pass through the thick dense layer of plasma but in the case of a fusion reactor we don't have that. Also, having a little background radiation is great as it triggers evolution and it'd be naive to think that the human is and will be natures greatest achievement. Anyhow, in my opinion its great that mankind has found more uses than killing each other for gamma rays.
What about all the good cells in front of the deep cancer?
Radiating food necesssary? Modern Age? Maybe you are only thinking about large cities. Storing for longer periods is a spoiled city-type convenience, however what about
You know there's much more types of bacteria, the ones that break down food aren't exactly life threatening, especially taking advantage of the body's own immune system, that's why a healthy person on the wilderness is able to survive, nutrients provide immune support, the processed food in the artificial cities is very denatured and lacking in necessary nutrition.
This area requires more knowledge from biology, nutrition, chemistry rather than radiation and physics.
There's one guy who goes by Dr. Group but he's more than just a doctor, in the early 2000' he had a cancer treating clinic operating somewhere in US.
That clinic didn't involve radiation or surgery. But a diet, supplements, physical exercise programme, relaxation and massage. It was raided by the FDA and shut down in a swat team operation, because it worked too good, the chemoteraphy industry had enough. Group then moved to focus on his supplement company, nutrition that should be in the food but isn't, in order to feed 6 billion people there isn't much focus on quality, and almost all the financial-corporate system is designed for profit, which means quality is always to be on the bottom of the totem pole.
are you serbian or welsh? i have£5 riding on it
Nixie tube counter.
I'ts a perfect video
Thanks!
Why didn't he try lead
"And...Human!"
Me= o_0
How it feels to be irradiated?
Is it like high on weed?
I don't think you should try either of them =)
@@CaptainCorrosion one causes cancer other kills cancer 😂♋
Just do it with PLUTONIUM XD...
Why didn't you wear any kind of safety gloves?! 😵
Why bother? Gamma rays would go straight through it into the hand and barely even absorb there as it is a low atomic number material, similar to the cutlets. This is a very weak radiation source after all that is safe to use for educational purposes.
@@CaptainCorrosion
Seriously dude wash you hand first!
Covid19!😂😂😂
@@hugonubario You are so right! Otherwise Covid-19 might get a dose and Hulk out 😂
A geiger counter may not be the best wisest detector to examine what types of materials to use for radiation shielding. As we know distance has an effect on radiation exposure and materials affect radiation differently and not just in obstructing the radiation but in changing its path. So cloud Chambers and ferrocells should be experimented with to demonstrate how to use different materials perhaps with air gaps to strategically shield from radiation magnetic fields can also be applied in these instances and May demonstrate in a very intuitive manner how to shield for radiation and important subject in space exploration for humanity
Remember.... no russian
I need my chop armor
Nixie tube display!
Geiger count from 1960
Can you plz repeat this experiment by using cow dung or onion
Hahaha! Or I could lift my hat a wish you to have a nice day, Sir xD
If they where gamma rays you would be destroyed instantly...
They are gamma rays and I'm still alive and I didn't turn into Hulk.
You watch too many movies
It depends on how much gamma Ray's the human body is exposed to
Do u have a geiger counter
Yes, of course.