Does exposure to a radioactive substance make another substance radioactive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CosmicVoyager
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Radioactive
AI Thread Summary
Exposure to a radioactive substance does not make a person radioactive; rather, it can lead to contamination where radioactive materials transfer to skin or clothing. A Geiger counter detects these radioactive traces, not the person's own cells becoming radioactive. In some cases, such as medical procedures using radioactive isotopes, a person may temporarily emit radiation but does not become radioactive themselves. The discussion highlights the distinction between contamination and actual radioactivity, often misrepresented in science fiction films. Overall, accurate use of Geiger counters in media can enhance realism, but they should not imply that individuals become radioactive from exposure alone.
CosmicVoyager
Messages
164
Reaction score
0
Greetings,

I have seen science fiction movies where a Geiger counter is used to tell if someone has radiation poisoning. Does being exposed to radiation from a radioactive substance make a person radioactive?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It depends. If a substance is exposed to a source of neutrons then some nuclei may experience neutron capture and hence produce unstable radioactive isotopes.

However, it is more likely that in these science fiction movies that the person has just experienced some radioactive contamination where traces of the radioactive substance have somehow transferred to their skin, clothing or hair, or worse they have somehow injested some radioactive substance. And these traces are picked up by the geiger counter.

This can have a serious effect on their health, and at large doses human cells will suffer considerable radiation damage but won't make their cells radioactive in themselves.
 
Polyamorph said:
However, it is more likely that in these science fiction movies that the person has just experienced some radioactive contamination where traces of the radioactive substance have somehow transferred to their skin, clothing or hair, or worse they have somehow injested some radioactive substance. And these traces are picked up by the geiger counter.

Agreed, from personal experience. The geiger counter doesn't tell you you have radiation poisoning per se. It just tells you if you have radioactive material on/in you. say you breathed in contaminated dust, or that same dust/radioactive mineral specks are on your outer body/clothing.
Holding one of my uranium rock samples isn't going to make/leave me radioactive when I finally place the sample away from me. I am just going to be affected (healthwise) by the particles radiated from the sample whilst I hold it.

Last year (2010) I had the interesting experience of a full body bone scan in hospital. It shows up rheumatoid and osteo arthritis in bone joints. they pumped a large syringe of Technetium99m into me and then did scans. for 2 days I was more radioactive than some of my rock samples. My geiger counter went crazy when brought near me. I even videoed it hahaha, by the 4th day it was almost gone from my system.


cheers
Dave
 
Polyamorph said:
However, it is more likely that in these science fiction movies that the person has just experienced some radioactive contamination where traces of the radioactive substance have somehow transferred to their skin, clothing or hair, or worse they have somehow injested some radioactive substance. And these traces are picked up by the geiger counter.
An even more likely explanation: Its just a movie. A badly done science fiction movie.
 
For those that have seen them use some sort of meter on people or objects in the news, they are simply searching for radioactive particles released from Japan. It is these particles which make things radioactive.
 
D H said:
An even more likely explanation: Its just a movie. A badly done science fiction movie.

I don't think use of a Geiger counter in a movie makes it a bad movie! As long as they are using it correctly.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...

Similar threads

Back
Top