Remember me
▼ Content

THREAD VERSUS THREAD! A REAL climate debate.



Page 4 of 4<<<234
RE: Gamma rays and beta particles during radon DECAY, not radon FORMATION from radium.30-03-2022 10:06
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Gamma rays and beta particles during radon DECAY, not radon FORMATION from radium.

"The gamma rays are from the radium, not the radon."

YOU ALREADY SHOWED ALPHA PARTICLES FROM RADIUM, not the radon.

My claim is that Gamma Spec is EQUALLY EFFECTIVE AT MEASURING RADIUM AND RADON with the SAME PEAK GAMMA SPECTRA.

Radium turns into radon, etc. further steps down the line are other isotopes you mentioned that DO EMIT ALPHA PARTICLES, and do NOT emit gamma rays or beta particles.

But your list of intermediaries consisted ONLY of the alpha emitters.

TWO VERY IMPORTANT ISOTOPES OF BISMUTH WERE MISSING FROM YOUR LIST.

I suspect you looked up ONLY "alpha emission" or something similar and were unaware that any bismuth isotopes or beta particles are involved.

But how could you be SO STUPID as to believe radium goes all the way to lead without emitting even ONE gamma ray. It emits TWO gamma rays, and TWO beta particles.

And why are you the only scientist in the world who knows there is no risk of gamma rays associated with radium or radon?

Never mind.

No point in your answering it.

You will just stick to your guns that you have never been wrong about one single scientific assertion EVER.

Good bye.

--------------------------------------------------------



























Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Gamma Spec is real. Gamma ray emission from radium decay products is real.

The gamma rays are from the radium, not the radon.

Radium decays into radon via alpha radiation. No gamma rays are emitted.
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:I'm pretty confident in my competence.

Good. Confidence is good, when based on good information. It is bad when it is based on manipulative disinformation.

Like I said, you aren't here to learn and you aren't here to teach. You aren't here to discuss science.

"Trolling" is the word I was looking for.

Yup. That's the word you are looking for.
30-03-2022 19:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...fixing severely damaged quoting...

sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Gamma Spec is real. Gamma ray emission from radium decay products is real.

The gamma rays are from the radium, not the radon.

Radium decays into radon via alpha radiation. No gamma rays are emitted.
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:I'm pretty confident in my competence.

Good. Confidence is good, when based on good information. It is bad when it is based on manipulative disinformation.

Like I said, you aren't here to learn and you aren't here to teach. You aren't here to discuss science.

"Trolling" is the word I was looking for.

Yup. That's the word you are looking for.


Gamma rays and beta particles during radon DECAY, not radon FORMATION from radium.

Radium decays to radon via alpha radiation. There are no gamma rays emitted.
sealover wrote:
"The gamma rays are from the radium, not the radon."

Radium is not a gamma emitter.
sealover wrote:
YOU ALREADY SHOWED ALPHA PARTICLES FROM RADIUM, not the radon.

My claim is that Gamma Spec is EQUALLY EFFECTIVE AT MEASURING RADIUM AND RADON with the SAME PEAK GAMMA SPECTRA.

Neither radium nor radon is a gamma emitter.
sealover wrote:
Radium turns into radon, etc. further steps down the line are other isotopes you mentioned that DO EMIT ALPHA PARTICLES, and do NOT emit gamma rays or beta particles.

But your list of intermediaries consisted ONLY of the alpha emitters.

TWO VERY IMPORTANT ISOTOPES OF BISMUTH WERE MISSING FROM YOUR LIST.

Bismuth is not involved in radium or radon decay.
sealover wrote:
I suspect you looked up ONLY "alpha emission" or something similar and were unaware that any bismuth isotopes or beta particles are involved.

Bismuth is not involved in radium or radon decay.
sealover wrote:
But how could you be SO STUPID as to believe radium goes all the way to lead without emitting even ONE gamma ray. It emits TWO gamma rays, and TWO beta particles.

Radium is not a beta emitter or a gamma emitter.
sealover wrote:
And why are you the only scientist in the world who knows there is no risk of gamma rays associated with radium or radon?

I'm not. You don't get to speak for all scientists. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Never mind.

No point in your answering it.

You will just stick to your guns that you have never been wrong about one single scientific assertion EVER.

How would you know? You deny science.
sealover wrote:
Good bye.

Going somewhere?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-03-2022 19:28
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
How much Radon would David Banner need to huff, to be transformed into The Incredible Hulk?
30-03-2022 23:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
HarveyH55 wrote:
How much Radon would David Banner need to huff, to be transformed into The Incredible Hulk?

Heh. Wouldn't work. He needs gamma radiation to do that. He could always get a good dose from an atomic blast, or basking in open space to the radiation of our Sun.

I don't think Marvel Comics ever specified how much gamma radiation he needed to transform into the Hulk. He became the Hulk by drinking 'Super Soldier Serum', a mythical substance created by Marvel of unknown ingredients or characteristics. It apparently was a strong gamma emitter though, far more than uranium-238 or even uranium-235 undergoing natural decay.

Why the stuff didn't kill him is never explained by Marvel Comics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 30-03-2022 23:48
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate THREAD VERSUS THREAD! A REAL climate debate.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Low temperature breaks record set over 100 years ago, proving climate change is real1225-05-2022 21:56
Tell your old college professors to check out climate-debate.com for biogeochemistry22125-05-2022 21:16
Why is Climate-debate.com so messed up?8309-05-2022 07:31
Who is who on Climate-debate.com9603-05-2022 23:04
National Climate Change Is Real Day (sealover please do not read this it is a surprise)529-04-2022 20:08
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact