Is radiation dangerous?

Radiation is all around us, ranging from the non-dangerous to the lethal. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln talks about the radiation and gives you the real deal on whether it is dangerous or not. (Spoiler alert: Sometimes!)

[@cleartheskyis4584]

Your mom joke is strong with this one

[@vampyricon7026]

"As far as I'm concerned, wilful misrepresentation of science is criminal." -Dr. Don Lincoln, 2017 If only, Dr. Lincoln. If only.

[@Soupy_loopy]

Vampyricon that law will never be passed under President Trump.

[@Baigle1]

just like content ID and strong copyright protection there is a limit that begins to make real work near impossible. in this case it would be real science.

[@noahshomeforstrangeandeduc4431]

If only. If only.

[@willypataponk]

hahahaha so nice. Trump would get impeached!

[@daviddavison7836]

@6 6 What do "the religious" have to do with the topic?

[@AntoshaPushkin]

"Yo momma is radioactive" © Dr. Don Lincoln, 2017, at the rap battle with anti-science people

[@clydeblair9622]

Rap is defined as illiterate so much for that. Might as well argue with a toad.

[@exu4602]

"Even your mom is radioactive." Bruh.

[@1pcfred]

A little radiation never hurt anyone. A lot of radiation on the other hand might be some cause for concern.

[@herbspivey965]

Is that a banana in your pants or are you just happy to see me.

[@markmiles5064]

Have just come across these Fermilab videos. Absolutely brilliant! Thankyou.

[@teachermichaelmaalim6103]

9:21 Now I understand why my mom is as active as a radio

[@user-uw7ui3si6y]

Lmao

[@montlejohnbojangles8937]

Dr. Don, bringin' the truth. I love your work man, never stop being the wonderful educator that you are!

[@techserve4453]

Excellent educational video logically constructed and delivered by a scientist who speaks the known truth. Thank you Dr. Don Lincoln.

[@diegobravo641]

Completely agree, science explained like this is beautiful to learn.

[@Mastikator]

'Cause we are living in a radioactive world and I am a radioactive girl

[@pnkflyd66]

Mastikator Ok Magamma

[@daniverse1016]

Mastikator hi gril

[@shadow404atl]

Another great video, always enjoy Dr. Lincoln's video explanations.

[@shadow404atl]

Woot, I'll be seeing you on September 10th for the Lecture at Fermilab. So looking forward to the lecture and the tour.

[@muhammadzainulabydeen52]

bewakoof

[@iantaylor230]

Thanks Fermilab and Doctor Don. Love your work!

[@briannielsbergh]

Great video, you're a great speaker :) Thank you for such a great video explaining. Now i understand it much better.

[@Ambienfinity]

You're so darn good at explaining these concepts properly!

[@garyjones4125]

Yet another well delivered presentation.... good job.

[@Ken.-]

My basement is radioactive!!! That is shocking. Especially since I don't have one.

[@erikhendrych190]

But sometimes you have radioactive dreams about it.

[@Songfugel]

It must have had a very short half-life

[@mediocreman6323]

A piece of information I am missing here is _why_ radiation damage depends on the time of exposure to radiation, so here it is: Radiation destroys chemical bonds of/alters molecules in your body. You body now has the ability to repair that damage, but it is limited, (and sometimes it may not be able to repair those broken molecules at all), so the damage _accumulates_ over time. Simplified: If the damage is done faster than the body can repair it or gets too severe in total, you will get sick or die. If you never reach those levels, you will be fine. Also - and I know I am a bit nitpicky here - you _are_ able to feel or see radiation. You feel infrared (warmth) and you see of course visible light. Of all the radiations out there the most dangerous to you might however be UV-light. Baking in the sun every day is by a wide margin much more dangerous than even living next to a nuclear power plant. Not to speak of things like texting while driving. But this is another topic entirely.

[@umeshaggarwal5624]

Loved this video and previous one too..man you are very awesome

[@danielthesantos]

What an excellent antidote to misinformation. In an age marked by misinformation and propaganda of all types, this is a really helpful video. Thank you!

[@SeattleSandro]

I grew up in the 80s watching Mr. Wizard's world and Newton's Apple. They inspired me to study science. If they ever reboot those shows, Dr. Lincoln could host and inspire another generation of little science nerds who grow up to study science.

[@jimmym3352]

I've been inside a Reactor Compartment about 6 or 7 times, not to mention general background radiation of a nuke plant. Though normal background radiation of an operating Navy nuke plant is pretty low. It was the reactor compartment entries that got most of my exposure in the Navy. That said, it was still probably less than the 2 CT scans I had to get this year. I say probably, because I'm too lazy to try to figure out the conversion of millisieverts into REM or Rads. We used REM, and I got over 600 millirem my entire time in. Okay I did look it up, it seems a CT scan can give up to 10 msv which appears to be 1 REM which seems really high. I'm so upset I had to get that 2nd CT scan. It appears 1 CT scan was more than the entire amount I got in the Navy.

[@fensoxx]

Thanks for your service Jimmy M

[@dougcoombes8497]

Another excellent video, this is rapidly becoming my favorite site to learn about science and the natural world!

[@potawatomi100]

Excellent video. Well explained. Thank you.

[@pauln1557]

A great video, but may I suggest that it would be easier for the layman if you used micro Sieverts in your discussion. It would make the relative magnitude of various doses easier to comprehend, because the numbers would be 'normal' numbers not tiny decimals. So a long air plane flight becomes 25 µS, compared to a typical annual dose of 6000 µS for a city dweller and a CT scan of 10,000 µS. Non technical folks probably find it more tricky to compare numbers like 0.000025 and 0.006 and 0.002 in their heads. I worked at the Sellafield reprocessing plant in the 1980's, we used to use Rem not Sievert, so I still think in mR! Regards Paul

[@erroneum]

When I hear "radiation" the first thing to mind is the entire electromagnetic spectrum, then I find myself wondering if the matter being discussed concerns ionizing and/or nuclear radiation.

[@feynstein1004]

Indeed. I think the title of the video should have been "Is ionizing radiation dangerous?"

[@freespuddy]

Feinstein, I agree. I think the title is not correct.

[@enemytortoise1520]

His point was to show how a certain type/amount of radiation is safe, while others are not. The title is exactly what it should be in this case. Lastly, all types of radiation are dangerous at high enough levels, whether it's particle radiation or electromagnetic radiation, and whether it's able to ionize an atom or not.

[@morningmadera]

so radio radiation is dangerous at high levels? come on ... I can live near a radio tower and nothing would happen to me.

[@robertlunsford1350]

His point was to show certain kinds of IONIZING radiation is "safe". Radiation is a very vague term on the electromagnetic spectrum.

[@quiversky4292]

Dr Lincoln, thank you for being a great science communicator and dispelling irrational fears. This is the best vaccine against misinformation and ignorance.

[@lochlanbarrett6851]

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[@dimtgco1428]

That was a good topic. You are right! Too little fact and too much fake news has jaded many of us. I get the dose now, but wish you had gone more into the types of radiation so the difference has some meaning. Like gamma radiation, versus solar radiation, x ray, etc. so different avoidance measures are clear.

[@Amox625]

dr.linclon thank u very much for explaining intresting science stuff....it would be an honour to meet you sir

[@fusiontricycle6605]

This is one of my favourite yt channels, along with Vsauce and PBSSpacetime

[@Bradgilliswhammyman]

I like pbs spacetime. Don't watch Vsauce.

[@damianp7313]

Im glad PBS spacetime isn't dumbed down

[@amonraii7273]

check out the science asylum

[@cortster12]

Very useful video! I come across so many people who have no idea what radiation truly is, so this could help them!

[@KarbineKyle]

Nice video! I have radioactive test sources that give off about 1 year's worth of ionizing radiation in 1 hour. Strontium-90, Americium-241, Cesium-137, and Radium-226. I also energize X-Ray tubes. An important thing to understand is the inverse square law. You square/inversely square your exposure when you move towards or away from a source of radiation. This applies to non-ionizing radiation too. Also, ionizing radiation ionizes atoms, which can alter chemical bonds.

[@nmagko]

Excellent explanation as always

[@jeylful]

Great video and explanation!

[@isaakhan004]

Mercury exposure is linked to health issues including poor brain function, anxiety, depression, heart disease and impaired infant development. Though tuna is very nutritious, it’s also high in mercury compared to most other fish. Therefore, it should be eaten in moderation - not every day. You can eat skipjack and light canned tuna alongside other low-mercury fish a few times each week, but should limit or avoid albacore, yellowfin and bigeye tuna.

[@diegobravo641]

Excellent video, science explained this way is truky beautiful to learn.

[@HalweJakkals]

As a radiographer, the upside down knee x-ray at 5:00 bothered me more than it should. :,D

[@3dmaxuser]

Why ?

[@alexandrechatty5439]

@@3dmaxuser because it is upside down ! 😂

[@HansLemurson]

Knee inversion is a serious condition!

[@3dmaxuser]

but its just a picture lol

[@alexandrechatty5439]

@@3dmaxuser Do you read a map upside down ?

[@LikeACactus]

There’s a fatal flaw in this video: at the point where Dr. Lincoln talks about flying an aircraft across the Atlantic, there’s a video of a plane taking off. The plane is clearly at National Airport in D.C., as evidenced by the recognizable Wilson Bridge in the background. No flights from National Airport cross the Atlantic! Everything about radiation was really great, though. Two thumbs up.

[@tresajessygeorge210]

THANK YOU PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!!

[@JonathonPawelko]

I had to laugh about the title right off. Thanks for doing a proper explanation of what radiation is and that radiation is everywhere.

[@boballende]

Excellent as always! :)

[@Hapyendingwow]

Why can't the "news" explain various topics in this manner. I know it's less dramatic but the truth is conveyed

[@McLovinMods]

Christian McCracken because the "news" only care about ratings and what keeps people watching? THE NEXT THING THAT CAN KILL YOU! Or so they want you to believe.

[@stefanhensel8611]

Public coverage of radioactivity has a history of underestimating its dangers, especially in the US (remember "duck and cover"?), not to mention Russia. What we experience now might just be an overcompensation.

[@muhammadzainulabydeen52]

hahaha

[@Willaev]

@@stefanhensel8611 Duck and cover didn't come from public media, it came from the government. The government was downplaying then , the media certainly hasn't been ever.

[@sp1nrx]

To truly appreciate your question please rent, stream or otherwise view the movie Network. It was so far ahead of its time and foretold what's going on in media today. BTW... it was an OSCAR winner.

[@samtheweebo]

I kinda thought the issue with the fish was the possibility of ingesting an actual piece of radioactive material that could stay with you slowly poisoning with radiation as it decays over years

[@klardfarkus3891]

Radiation dose is cumulative so it is wise to minimize your exposure to radiation.

[@geonerd]

Perhaps more specifically, the chance that any given electron path will cause irreversible genetic damage is proportional to the total dose. Just one high energy event can create a whole swarm of free electrons, any one of which has a very small, but NON-ZERO, chance of producing pre-cancerous genetic damage. Lincoln's distinction between 'safe' and 'unsafe' doesn't wash for me. That said, one banana is HIGHLY unlikely to hurt you....

[@klardfarkus3891]

You are right but maybe a banana every plus background radiation plus a significant exposure might harm you.

[@MrVolodus]

Small amount of radiation has the potential to initiate the adaptive immune responses, so in the end increased exposure can be thing that saves you from cancer. Same as with sun. It's very dangerous, but avoiding sunlight completely is not necessary. So don't stare for half hour into open active nuclear reactor :D

[@rickhunter-wolff]

Depends wether dose is ionizing or particulate. Your dental exam is ionizing. One quick zap. Your body recovers. Inhale tritium or an alpha particle and you'll be in trouble.

[@JohnSmith-lf8ks]

I so dislike these wholesale statements such as "minimise your exposure". Life is full of risks at various probabilities. We have finite resources at our disposal and limited amount of time and life span anyway. So it makes sense to simplify to risk management to practical level by categorising things into safe, less safe, not safe ... or what ever we think makes sense. If we just minimise radiation there is no end now much time we spend minimising cause there is always something to that you can eliminate and thus get closer to zero, the ultimate unattainable goal of minimisation. Sure makes sense to 'minimise' exposure by avoiding unnecessary exposure but if have a health issue and your doctor things you need an x-ray, I would go with the doctor. And do you avoid flying for business and holiday trips? Me neither...

[@trunxkuntrunxkun409]

man, that ending music is so cool! Congratulations to the musicians who made it ;)

[@bongor4792]

It's not 3 roentgen it's 15000.

[@karelkrajicek6607]

you are delusional

[@soundoholic2490]

That's not terrible, I've seen worse.

[@cliftonjames785]

I saw graphite in the rubble

[@karelkrajicek6607]

@@cliftonjames785 you did not see it because its not there!

[@cliftonjames785]

@@karelkrajicek6607 somethings not right...do you taste metal?

[@zaphodsbluecar9518]

Why not use milisieverts? 🙂

[@jimmym3352]

@@ex-muslimZafarSahil Uh no, we were taught the metric system and use the metric system every day (just not on day to day stuff like milk volumes or speed limits)

[@lyrimetacurl0]

Or roentgens

[@KurtRichterCISSP]

Keeping everything in the same scale makes comparisons more intuitive.

[@seijirou302]

@@lyrimetacurl0 roentgens are a measurement in the air, and don't accurately correlate to the amount that your body will absorb. Think of it like being in a building with air conditioning, and measuring what the temperature is outside. Okay if it's hotter outside, maybe it's hotter inside, but not not necessarily. What we really want to know is the temperature inside. Sieverts measure what the body absorbs, which is the measurement that matters.

[@seijirou302]

@Travis Tucker while rads and greys are measurements of how much radiation is absorbed by a mass, what we really want to know is the biological damage. Sieverts directly tells us the biological damage.

[@brianc2789]

This guy is phenomenal in how he teaches

[@ProperLogicalDebate]

When it's said that the half-life is 200,000 years that sounds worse than a half life of 1 year. Yet, as I understand it, if I was in a room for 1 year with something that could spray the room with bullets during that year, I would be far safer than being there with that same thing but it takes 200,000 years to fire the same number of bullets (most of those years I wouldn't be there or would have died thousands of years ago. Yet a long half life sounds more dangerous?

[@dicklongmire6836]

I always complain about living in Illinois and tell myself how bad it is to live here given property taxes and weather but then I realize we have all the great things like Dr. Don Lincoln and Fermilab in right here in Batavia Illinois.

[@nverbe]

that was an awfully small bite of that banana, and the shot was so quick to cut away before you swallowed.... hmmmmmmm

[@GrooveQuest]

It freaked me out a little when that banana disappeared, then realized it must have decayed away.

[@TylerShackleford]

This man does not like bananas. What was that bite 😂 Great video. My grandfather worked worked a nuclear power for over 20 years would always try and explain this to me. He’s just turned 70 :)

[@spypruduktion]

Oh Don, why drag my mother into this

[@Kalumbatsch]

Something macabre about the video (or the topic in general) is that it gets really interesting when you ramp up the dose and start talking about sickness and death and everything.

[@Kalumbatsch]

Hey, I'm not against it. I would have liked some pictures of disfigured mutated animals, while we're at it. I just noticed that this was the most interesting part. Dangerous things are interesting, I guess.

[@DanielMaurerDiabolo]

I'm a physics master's student at a German university and it's fun that I literally understand everything that's written on this blackboard in the background. For those people, having no idea, It's all about particle particle physics and the math behind particle reactions/transitions (differential cross sections, spontaneous symmetry breaking, nuclear/meson formfactors, detector types, potentials, radiation, ...)

[@mrkiky]

ᶜᵒᵒˡ

[@xisotopex]

its also a reminder to remember the cake

[@Kie-7077]

About the area around Fukushima, the average air radiation amount is not necessarily indicative of the dangers. When the tops blew off of those Fukushima reactors they did not magically disperse radioactive material in a perfectly distributed manner, varying amounts of material of varying sizes went and polluted the surrounding areas in a haphazard manner. The point is, you could live in Fukushima for 10 years and be fine, or you could visit for a day and be unlucky, inhale a particle of highly radioactive dust and die of lung cancer and there would be no way of knowing whether you got cancer through normal bad luck or because of a contaminated bit of material. The point is you can't over-simplify this complicated issue and radiation outside of the body is typically far less harmful than radiation that gets ingested of breathed into the body, one particle of the wrong material ingested can sit there emitting harmful radiation and like Russian roulette it might kill you and it might not. I do think this video over-simplifies.

[@J.RRandallIllinois]

I worked at fermi lab in 2001 as an electrician. If anyone is in the area check it out. Near aurora , Illinois.

[@jacksalvatierra7959]

Dr. Don, can you explain how does the ionizing radiation of CT-Scanners may cause cancer?

[@homerp.hendelbergenheinzel6649]

In so glad I thought of Marie Curie when I heard radiation.

[@spencerftn1]

When I was a Navy Nuke in the 90's we used REM. Nukes today talk in Sieverts. When did Sievert become the preferred measurement of dose?

It always was the US is just slowly catching up. The rem has been defined since 1976 as equal to 0.01 sievert.

[@theeddorian]

@ It is not as if it was anything but a scientific bit of faddism. They convey the same information, just in different units. I like REM because one REM is a sunburn. And one Sievert is 100 REM. Typical SI exaggeration. And the rem is a CGS unit so directly convertible to SI.

@@theeddorian No.

[@TheDisabledGamersChannel]

I love that t-shirt you're wearing, i need to find one like that for myself.

[@constpegasus]

You always make my day Mr Lincoln when you release a new video. If these were available when I was a kid, I probably would have went for particle physics instead of helicopters.

[@frankschneider6156]

You can do a double slit experiment not only with photons, but also with cats and helicopters.

[@carlokop556]

Hi great video. Can you comment on the difference between sieverts and rads. I'm kinda lost.

[@karhukivi]

The Sievert is the unit of dose in units of energy per mass (Joules per kg) corrected for the type of radiation absorbed. The rem was an older unit, 1Sv=100rem.

[@user-zz6fk8bc8u]

9:21 - _"Even your mom is radioactive"_ lmao

[@maximaleffort]

Thx Dr!

[@MrTustri]

After release of Chernobyl ,my feed is filled with nuclear recommendation. Interesting.

[@roryoneill6507]

Are you at all worried about Fukushima? I have been for a while. Your momma though! Great stuff! Loving your videos from Ireland! Keep the education coming buddy!

[@mrkiky]

I'm more worried about seeing my family this Christmas. I just heard my mom is radioactive...

[@arafet3198]

This vedio is better than my school keep it up

[@thewhizkid3937]

Mr Arfet you are not alone

[@DeyvsonMoutinhoCaliman]

Some mountains can have a disproportionate amount of radioactive material, which can make a healthy life among nature to be a little more radioactive than a life in the city.

[@abbasali3100]

Very nice video I m a photographer which used to be using old lenses that contain thorium oxide which they are radioactive dose that harm people using it.

[@user-tk1yl9sq3n]

Dear Mr.Lincoln, I knew my Mom was radioactive before this video😂😂

[@WatchingTokyo]

Great video! And don't forget! Uli's goodbye cake! 2:30pm!

[@brucebarnes8138]

I have worked with a lot of radiation. I have always found mrems easier to understand than SI. The meters we used were in millirems. I found working decimals of a sievert confusing. I know SI is the international standard, but why did they not make SI a more useable unit?

[@geoffreykail9129]

well presented

[@bogfinken]

What makes you think I don't worry about my mom? For sure you haven't met my mom, radiation is afraid of her! 🤣🤣🤣

[@Sauron191]

I have a question. I’m an NDT engineer and I was ‘accidentally’ exposed to a 24 curie Iridium 192 source that was not collimated at a distance of between 500mm to 1m for around 5 mins .. What dose did I receive? This was in the early 90’s.

[@Azzinoth224]

Hi, are you sure about the 24 curie (without prefix)? Thats a pretty strong source. According to my rough estimates you received between 20 and 80 mSv. For comparison, the background dose is about 4 mSv per year and the maximum permitted dose for radiation workers is 50 mSv per year. Do that again and you get to go on vacation for the rest of the year! I wouldn't expect any long term health effects from that, but it's definitively not allowed to stay in reach of such a strong source. You and your coworkers were careless.

[@sithlordmaster181]

Two videos in and I’ve already learned more than a semester of college physics.

[@thewhizkid3937]

sithlordmaster181 I wonder why 🎮

[@GeraldDarden]

How much does Potassium Iodide help with short (

[@stevenmellemans7215]

not at all. works only for internal contamination by radioactive iodine. is probably a topic for a next video :-).

[@SoYFooD2]

it will not help at all. the protection it offers is from radio active dust being absorbed by your body and radiating your cells and body from the in side out. it work by saturating your body so when u ingest or inhale radio active iodine u poop and pee it out in relative safety instead of fusing it in your bones and giving it years and years of time to do damage. radio active iodine is a produce by fission in a reactor or a bomb so the protection is very limited and specific.

[@Lobos222]

You think your thyroid is the only part of your body? Good luck with that. Iodide and auto-injectors (nerve gas counter) is what I associate with, what was back then called, ABC warfare training. Its not meant to be a "cure or counter all". Its just meant to keep you fighting/combat effective for longer... Point is, Iodide alone isnt "protection". Edit: I assume you already know that Iodide has to be used BEFORE exposure, regardless.

[@chrisbalfour466]

The short answer is it wont help. Taking large doses of iodine may eventually cause hyperthyroidism and other health problems. Potassium iodide is taken to avoid a single effect of nuclear fallout, and does not reduce the harm from radiation. By saturating your body with non-radioactive iodine, you wont absorb as much radioactive iodine.

[@ivuldivul]

It will not help at all! KI does not magically protects you from direct sources of radiation. It should only be administered when there's a significant risk of contact with radioactive isotopes of Iodine. What it does? It prevents that radioactive Iodine from being incorporated into your body and possibly damaging thyroid gland. Word of warning: Do not take KI as precaution. It may do you more harm than good!

[@billychi6961]

You know the common misunderstanding about radiation is how the dosage is received. Swallowing an alpha source will cause a lot more damage than standing next to an unshielded alpha source but swallowing an alpha source is more dangerous than standing next to a gamma source unshielded. Most of the gamma rays penetrate through you and so the absorbed amount of radiation is low but when an alpha source is ingested you get 100% of the emitted radiation. I don’t know if sieverts account for radiation that is not absorbed. It’s really paradoxical because it is always taught that alpha particles are the least dangerous but that isn’t always true

[@Ibrahim-nz4hy]

Nice video

What do I think about when I hear "radiation"?: Mme. Curie painfully dying for playing chemistry

[@lolatomroflsinnlos]

Very good

[@Lucius_Chiaraviglio]

Actually, the radioactivity in us and our food IS dangerous. Being capable of doing damage just like the radiation found in more dangerous things, it is likely to be responsible for part of the background level of cancer. In principle, this could be tested by growing mice on a diet in which all the potassium has been isotopically purified to remove all of the potassium 40 (a major source of this internal radiation); however, this would be extremely expensive, and thus (as far as I know) has yet to be done. Also, it is not good to gloss over the dangers of going into an area such as those around Chernobyl of Fukushima. While you might be within safe limits with respect to radiation that you get just by standing there for a few hours, you also run the risk of inhaling radioactive dust or getting it on your clothes and then later ingesting or inhaling it without realizing it. Even though the radiation emitted by the dust would not be dangerous just from being next to it for a few hours, having it emitted inside you would be damaging and confer a substantial risk of cancer. So it is best to stay out of such areas, stay out of areas downwind or downcurrent from them, and avoid making them in the first place.

[@geonerd]

YES!! The "background" cancer rate among people with few other risk factors is, IMO, significantly driven by accumulated low radiation doses over the years. When a single ionizing event has the capacity to cause 'critical' genetic damage, there is no 'safe dose.' There's a level where it doesn't make sense to worry about it, but to call one small banana "100% safe" seems unjustified.

[@ads0504]

Do a video on the quantum Zeno effect

[@christianlainesse4281]

what about using thoriated camera lenses?

[@kevinhartsmom8574]

When I think of Radiation, I think of Dr. Lincoln. My Lord your skin is Lovely!

[@KaiHenningsen]

When I think of radiation, my first thought is the non-radioactive kind ... the kind we get from the sun (or from hot ovens). It's sort of a fairly weak gamma radiation (as in photons). IR feels warm, visible is visible (duh!), and UV can fast get dangerous if you're not using enough sun screen (and, yes, can cause (skin) cancer).

[@kevinhartsmom8574]

Oh My, I may have to check that one out!

[@kevinhartsmom8574]

ummmm...what you said lol

[@rkpetry]

Odd question-we used to wear watches with radium-lighted dials: how much in Sieverts... Q#2. Which ordinary elements naturally radiate more Sieverts by accessibility, e.g. carbon, tungsten/wolfram, potassium,... Q#3. Are Sieverts a measure of primary effects, secondary emissions, absorptions, energy-levels, delayed chemical poison productions....

[@rkpetry]

So grocer potassium chloride used by many for lower sodium intake is TENORM by concentrating K-40... 'hmm'...

[@puncheex2]

In the area of 5-15 mSv/year. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22580295

[@RobotoSan]

Slightly disappointed he didn't point to his shirt and say "if you see this on a sign or label, then yes, potentially dangerous radiation is afoot." For anyone who doesn't know, that is the hazard symbol for ionizing radiation.

[@PhilipWerlau]

Great video, though I found the decimal representation of Sieverts hard to follow. It's much easier to follow 6 milliSieverts than 0.006 Sieverts.

[@McLovinMods]

Philip Werlau I'm with you there. I usually think of radiation in either microsieverts or millisieverts

[@LordMephistoteles]

my mom isnt radioactive YOU ARE RADIOACTIVE!

[@Shkunk1]

Damn! Now I have to cancel my vacation to Chernobyl.

[@jamieeast4974]

Ya know everyone loves neuclear meltdown. Not to forget staying away from the area for 100,000 years.

[@troydiehl4466]

“Even your mom is radioactive” 😂😂😂

[@jaychapman6448]

Anyone know how to convert a dose given as Dose Length Product to Sieverts?

[@mikechambers9129]

Don, Something I'd like to see explained professionally on this topic is a more fundamental definition of radiation. Out there is the websphere, there is a contingent of fear mongers that wittingly or not exploit the broad term "radiation" to condemn nearly anything. The one I hear most often (and annoyingly) involves telecommunication radio waves. The wife of a friend heard that Wi-Fi is radioactive. While it's true that Wi-Fi creates radiating electromagnetic waves, this view ignores more than a few salient facts, among them 1) the waves are not ionizing, 2) the waves do not contain high energy particles, 3) the transmitter energy for most devices is way under a half watt (vs the 1000 or so watts from light bulbs), etc.

[@nineball039]

Veritasium video explaining the difference between radiation and radioactive atoms may help. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZbLfHSZmLJrppI

[@puncheex2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation

[@j7ndominica051]

The black bug in close up is scary. The sound comes from all around so I can't tell where the bug is. It might fall on my face.

[@MichaelCoombes776]

I don't microwave food to reheat it, I irradiate it with sub-infrared high-velocity energy packets

[@Hermentotip]

-Your mom is so radioactive! -How radioactive is she?

[@DKTAz00]

Another good point is the difference between an activated reactor and one thats been assembled but never run. (ie. not dangerous to send reactors into space, as they dont activate until they get there. )

[@puncheex2]

Uh, perhaps. They still require fuel, which is itself mildly radioactive. If you are talking about a Radioistope thermal generator (RTG) they are always on, but they don't fission. They use plutonium-238's natural decay heat. There is also, I might add, that there is a difference also in a reactor that has been shutdown. It no longer outputs neutrons as an active one does, but it is chock full of very highly radioactive fission products, whose natural decay make the fuel hot for a long time after the shutdown, but they do eventually cool down.

[@astropredo]

Miss your videos, Don