Re: [Leica] Radiation and half lifes: less is more: way off topic

[John Collier <jbcollier@home.com>]

Alas, I did not study nuclear physics like my parents hoped I would but I
have come into a smattering of knowledge on the subject. 14 billion years is
a long time to wait for your dog to come back from a walk or, perhaps, for
your true love to come around; but, not such a long time for an element.
There are elements with half lives much much shorter than our present
guestimate of the universe's age (so short we had to make them to find them)
and more are being discovered in the spooky, long (very long) corridors of
mass accelerators. Radioactivity is defined as: "the property of spontaneous
disintegration of atomic nuclei usually with emission of penetrating
radiation or particles" (Oxford). For any given mass of material, the more
of it that breaks down over a set period, the more radiation or particles
are emitted. A "half life" is the period of time in which half of a given
quantity of an element will break down. So if you squeeze the three above
statements together you will realise that the shorter its half life, the
more radioactive an element will be. I have noticed this in human nature as
well; the shorter the low-life, the more trouble they are! As an interesting
aside elements can break down through a whole series of stages before they
become stable and at one time it was possible for enough fissile material to
gather through natural processes for spontaneous nuclear explosions. Neat.
You know what they say about the good old days. And finally elements do not
particularly cotton to the saying: "a life half lived is not worth living at
all."

John Collier


> From: "Mike Gil" <pasuno@hotmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 09:00:59 PST
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Radiation and half lifes
> 
> Of course this statement is false, its the other way around, the shorter a
> radioactive element takes to decay the less radioactive it is.  A 13 billion
> year half life is a very long time for something.