Guide to Beta Particles - Page 2

On February 12 2010 01:31 micronesia wrote:

Yeah I should be clear about whether I mean ionizing radiation or electromagnetic radiation.

On February 12 2010 01:31 micronesia wrote:

Yeah I should be clear about whether I mean ionizing radiation or electromagnetic radiation.

On February 12 2010 01:41 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:

whenever you talk about nuclear physics/chemistry in general, radiation always refers to the products of radioactive decay (other than the big atoms that decay themselves)... isn't that standard?

On February 12 2010 02:00 ArmChairCritic wrote:

...

On February 12 2010 02:04 micronesia wrote:

Perhaps, but isn't it clear if I say 'radiation as opposed to beta particles' that I meant electromagnetic radiation? I almost never talk about nuclear physics/chem and it's my weakest area actually :p


Quit a fitting username you have lol

On February 12 2010 02:34 ArmChairCritic wrote:

I just thougth it was wrong to say "ionizing radiation or electromagnetic radiation" when ionizing radiation can be electromagnetic radiation.

On February 11 2010 23:35 ]343[ wrote:
hmm I have a question that I was too lazy to ask in physics class yesterday

so consider something like

(e-) + p -> n + ν (that's a nu I swear!)

vs.

p -> n + (e+) + ν

so the "net effect" of this reaction is the same

but can we call it the "same reaction"? because emitting a positron, if we just randomly decided to add an e-/e+ pair production, would be equivalent to absorbing an electron... plus we can think of absorbing an electron as "emitting an electron through negative time"?

I hope I'm coherent here...

On February 12 2010 02:56 Freezard wrote:
Was the electron comment really necessary? Far from everyone knows what an electron is.

Pretty arrogant coming from someone writing a terrible explanation of what a positron is. You make it sound like a proton. Just sayin'.

On February 11 2010 23:17 micronesia wrote:
if you don't know what an electron is then I hope you are in middle school or a third world country or something

One additional interesting thing about Beta particles: not only can they damage biological tissue, but, if they strike DNA, they can actually cause a spontaneous mutation! Even if that does not occur, a severe cancer can result.

On February 12 2010 04:27 rei wrote:
"Throughout this reaction, the total energy of the particles is conserved even though the mass changes."
E=mc^2

how do you have E be constant if m changes????? are you saying C changed under that situation?? or are you saying E=mc^2 is BS?????

Explain!!!!

On February 12 2010 04:27 rei wrote:
"Throughout this reaction, the total energy of the particles is conserved even though the mass changes."
E=mc^2

how do you have E be constant if m changes????? are you saying C changed under that situation?? or are you saying E=mc^2 is BS?????

Explain!!!!

On February 12 2010 04:38 Hammy wrote:

Too bad this comment isn't as insightful as the rest of your blog

How exactly do they cause severe cancer while not causing any mutations?

Also, on a side note, but I'm just nitpicking: The beta particles don't actually cause the mutations. They very slightly alter the DNAs structure (by creating thymine dimers, or perhaps pyrimidin dimers in general) but that's not exactly a mutation (it's not a change of the nucleotid sequence).
The mutation results from the reparation mechanisms that mismatch nucleotids while exercing their function.

Good blog though, it made me look up beta decay since I couldn't remember the details

On February 12 2010 01:48 larjarse wrote:
This is a cruel joke...

But informative and good read.