3 ms·
Gamma radiation is not "higher energy" than alpha or beta radiation. And the energy of particle is not by itself significant as far as radiation damage is conce
by 7402 14y ago
Gamma radiation is not "higher energy" than alpha or beta radiation. And the energy of particle is not by itself significant as far as radiation damage is concerned - what matters is how that radiation is deposited in you as the particle passes through you. An extremely high-energy neutrino could pass through you with no effect whatsoever.
Materials such as a sheet of paper or piece of cloth have a higher stopping power (loss of energy per unit distance) for alpha particles (helium nuclei of charge +2) and beta particles (electrons of charge -1) than for gamma rays (photons - uncharged particles).
This is why an alpha emitter is much less significant if it's outside your body, but much more significant if it's in your lungs - because it dumps all its energy inside you where it can cause damage.
- lostlogin 14y agoI'm not sure if this is semantics or not. Yes, low energy and high energy radiation both can cause bad damage and a DNA hit from one is as bad as that from another, but that isn't the point. Standing in a 20KV beam is going to do you more damage than standing in a 500KV beam on a photon by photon basis - but only because more of the 500kV beam will go straight through you. An I missing your point though? Edit: Yes I am. Your talking about alpha versus gamma, not low energy damage versus high energy damage.
- fatbird 14y agoAs I said, this isn't my area of expertise. The link I provided says "Distance is a prime concern when dealing with gamma rays, because they can travel long distances. Alpha and beta particles don't have enough energy to travel very far." What does this mean, then? I assume that the EPA isn't wrong about gamma radiation traveling further than alpha or beta; in virtue of what, then, does it travel further? I suspect that "energy" is being used fairly loosely, here.