Radiation terminology

[darkstar3]

As a public service, I present the following simple page:
http://www.jlab.org/div_dept/train/rad_guide/rad.html

Radiation is not found "in" things. It is not found in food, it is not found in milk, it is not found "in" anything. It can't be. Radiation is energy, and it is found coming out of things. Now this may seem pedantic, but it is important to understand.

When someone tells you that "radiation has been found in X", you should know right away that they either:
a) Don't know what they're talking about.
-OR-
b) Are trying to scare you.

It's also possible that both A and B are true.

Why do I say this? Because in the feeling of the general public, the term radiation is scary, and it is especially scary when it is unquantified. You cannot properly quantify the radiation found "in" something, because radiation is measured in units of energy, not in units of volume or mass. Units of volume or mass are what we would understand in terms of something found within something else.

Example:
"Active Ingredients:
Hydrocodone - 5mg
APAP - 500mg"

Now, let me come to my point: Sensationalism is worthless and irresponsible. The statement that "radiation has been found in X" is sensationalism. If we want to be informed citizens, let us focus on quantifiable, accurate information, and leave the hype to Faux Noise.

[Newest Reality]

1. I would contrast the word radiation

with the word radioactivity. That is something that can be found in things and I think the term radiation is used loosely and often, inappropriately.

Radioactive materials emit radiation and that is in contrast to background or other forms of radiation.

So, the question could be, what kind of, and what amount of actual radioactive substances are present? They can be inhaled and ingested by animals and humans and can also effect plants and vegetables. When they are present, the are sources of continual radiation that is detrimental to health and can remain in an organism for indeterminate periods of time.

[Xipe Totec]

2. Radiation found "in" things is shorthand for radiation found "emanating from" things. n/t

[darkstar3]

3. Unquantifiable, sensationalist shorthand.

[Xipe Totec]

4. unsupported opinion n/t

[darkstar3]

5. Really? Which one of the following statements is quantified, and which one gets more reaction?

"A sample of X taken from product Y contained 4 ppm of radioactive iodine..."
-OR-
"Radiation was found in product Y..."

[jtuck004]

6. I think if you offer people product Y on a tray, say on a cracker, and alternate the two statements

on a little card beside the sample, there wouldn't be a hill of beans in the different rejection rates today.

Even though the first line is more quantifiable.

And thank you for your work. We should watch our language, and thoughts.

Oh, and in the Review, the word "defies" should be replaced with "defined"

From the page - "Ionizing radiation may be defines as..."