Probably s tupid question but

  • Thread starter Thread starter roy2008
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the appearance and handling of radioactive materials, including concerns about contamination and the historical context of radiation exposure. Participants explore the physical characteristics of radioactive substances and the risks associated with their handling in various environments.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that radioactive materials look similar to their non-radioactive counterparts, as isotopes share chemical and physical properties.
  • Contamination can occur through direct contact with radioactive materials or from materials that change due to exposure to radiation.
  • It is suggested that the general public is unlikely to encounter radioactive substances, as those who work with them typically wear protective gear to minimize exposure.
  • There is a distinction made between being near radioactive materials and being contaminated by them, with examples provided of how certain isotopes can affect biological systems.
  • Participants mention that many radioactive substances are found in mixed forms, such as oxides or ores, and that visible glowing is often a misconception, as most do not emit visible light.
  • Historical references are made to the dangers faced by workers in industries using radium, highlighting the lack of understanding of radiation effects in earlier decades.
  • Some participants reference the health impacts on workers from the Radium Dial Company, noting that many suffered severe health consequences due to their exposure to radium.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the appearance and risks of radioactive materials, with no consensus on the specifics of contamination and the historical implications of radiation exposure. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the nuances of these topics.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about public exposure to radioactive materials and the varying definitions of contamination. The historical context provided may not fully capture the complexities of radiation safety practices over time.

roy2008
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
probably s tupid question but...

I was just wondering what radioactive materials typically look like? solid metal or powder? and if one handles these materials would their skin then be contaminated?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org


The look exactly like the non-radioactive version.
Atoms come in slightly diffierent types called isotopes, most are stable, a few are radioactive but they have the same chemical and physical properties.

Contamination is either from some of the material rubbing off and staying on your skin or from a more highly radioactive material changing the material that it's in contact with and making it radioactive.
 


roy2008 said:
I was just wondering what radioactive materials typically look like? solid metal or powder? and if one handles these materials would their skin then be contaminated?
Radioactive materials come in various forms, the same as non-radioactive materials. They are however controlled at the source. It would be rather improbable that someone in the general public would come in contact with a radioactive substance. People who mine coal, minerals and particuarly thorium or uranium ores, and those who work with radioactive materials would certainly have a much greater risk of coming in contact with radioactive materials, BUT people in those situations wear protective clothing and gear and/or work remotely with the materials. The objective is to miminize or prevent the contact with radioactive materials.
 


There is a huge difference between just being near radioactive materials that are giving off radiation, and actually being contaminated by them. Many deadly radioactive materials have radiation that would be stopped by a piece of paper.

Radioactive fallout carried in the wind, as happened with the Chernobyl nuclear accident, can have elements like Strontium90 end up in the grass that gets eaten by cows. Folk drink the milk and it ends up in their bones because Strontium can chemically replace Calcium. There, the radiation knocks bits out of the cells DNA, messing up the reproducing, and causing cancers like leukemia. Even now, there are parts of the UK where such farming is not permitted. Yet to look at, Strontium is a silvery-grey metal, very like Calcium, and they both oxidize into white chalk.

Most radioactive substances are not seen pure. Instead, they come mixed up as oxides or ores. A few cause blue glows when put in water. (Called Cherenkov Effect) See a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation" know that many radioactive things are in fact glowing brightly. Its just that the wavelength involved is not a visible one. Gamma radiation from Cobalt 60, used to treat cancers, is like and unseen light. It is deadly! it is just and urban myth that radioactive things visibly glow. Radioactive things do not normally glow visibly by themselves. They look exactly like their non-radioactive versions.

Glow-in-the-dark clock faces and pointers have in the past been made with phosphrescent paint mixed with Radium. This is no longer done, but many people got very ill making them. Many gemstones like rubies and sapphires are treated with radiation to improve their colours, and have to be kept for years in lead-lined safes until they become safe to handle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


As I understand it, a fair number of the employees of the Radium Dial Company got seriously dead due to their work...
 


That was back when the effects of radiation were not clearly understood (40's). The painters would use a fine tip brush to paint radium on to the dials of airplane instruments, and would "lick" the tip of the brush to make a finer point. Radium is a bone seeker, so many of them developed leukemia and other bone/marrow diseases.
 
It seems to have been occurring before the 1940’s according to the person on page 2 of this forum!
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200510/ai_n15640929/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
16K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
4K