From: Keith R. Williams
Subject: Re: eer
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:46:39 -0500
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60
In article <email@example.com>,
> John Larkin jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com
> >On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:32:04 +0000, John Woodgate
> > wrote:
> >>I read in sci.electronics.design that StevJensen
> >>wrote (in <firstname.lastname@example.org>) about 'eer', on
> >>Tue, 29 Oct 2002:
> >>>The article I read quoted a half-life for the proton, which *is* hydrogen
> >>>electron of course. Granted it specified a very long time, but on the other
> >>>there are a lot of protons.
> >>AFAIK, proton decay is not established as a fact.
> >I believe the 1e34 years is an established lower limit. A neutron's
> >half-life is something like 20 minutes.
> FWIW the original estimate I saw was 1e18 years the last I saw was 10e23.
> If they now upped it to 1e34 I am not particularly surprised.
> The point of the statement was just how long does a half life have to be
> before someone considers a substance inert rather than radioactive?
> I would have to look it up again but I believe a free neutron has a half life
> considerably shorter than a second.
> Everyone seems to hyped up on the fact that reactors produce some
> relatively uncommon isotopes.
> There are only three different kinds of radiation
> alpha (protons/hydrogen/one of the constituents of water),
> beta (electrons/the stuff people in this ng work with)
> and photons(radio waves, light, xrays, gamma rays, more stuff that you work
> Just what difference does it make which particular isotope is emitting
> the electrons, hydrogen, or light?
You forgot neutrons. In all cases *fast* ones (high energy) will
fry you. Ionizing radiation is badness to living things.
I suppose you have hear of the dangers of radiation poisoning?
Even ol' Sol's light causes cancer.