It may be time to go on to a new subject, but the new subject is related to the old subject. How? First, it must be accepted that words mean things, as the late Rush Limbaugh used to say. Therefore, when the word "energy" is discussed, perhaps it is best to understand a few things things about it that may be shrouded in confusion. Second, that the reason for the confusion may be a feature not a bug. Third, to de-confuse people may help them understand the relationship between the two subjects.
The subject at hand is a certain confusion between nuclear energy terms and chemical energy terms. The words that are used are important. Therefore, a clear definition must be set forth. What is nuclear energy and what is chemical energy? For the purposes of this post, nuclear energy refers to energy produced by nuclear reactions, which are in the nucleus of an atom. This is in contrast with chemical energy, which is in the interactions between the nucleus of an atom and electrons.
One thing that sets nuclear energy apart from chemical energy, besides the one mentioned in the previous paragraph, is the enormous difference in the reactions. Nuclear energy is said to be a millions times more powerful. Why? Rather than to discuss that, let's just accept that it is true. What is meant by nuclear reactions is defined as changes in the composition of the nucleus of an atom. Thus, it gains or loses parts of itself. When it gains, it is often is considered to be fusion. Such would require the gain of protons. Neutrons could also be added, but these can result in a loss of larger parts, which could be said to be fission.
Rather than to be too tedious here, it is only needed to show that nuclear changes, which are changes in the nucleus, are to be distinguished from chemical changes, which are changes in the electrons that surround the nucleus.
Protons have a positive electrical charge. Electrons have a negative electical charge. The tendency is for these to want to combine in such a way as to make the charge neutral. This can result in chemical compounds. Water is such a compound, which has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. The three atoms are sharing electrons in such a way as to make the compound electrically neutral. Thus, there will an equal number of protons and electrons present. The energy resulting from such a combination is said to be chemical energy--- that definition may not be the best scientific defintion, but it works for this post.
Again, to not be too tedious here. The confusion here relates to what is chemical and what is nuclear. If ions, which are particles that have an electrical imbalance, are introduced, the energy is not nuclear.
It may help to give a real life example. In treatment of certain cancers, such as the one I had, proton therapy was employed. Protons are ions. The energy related to them is chemical, not nuclear. Yet, it is considered to be "radiation". It is this misconception that scares the hell out of people. The radiation, as it was, was not nuclear. It was chemical, because it was an electrical imbalance that was achieved by removing an electron from the hydrogen atom. Ions are atoms with missing electrons.
A lot of trouble caused by radiation is caused by the imbalances that were imparted to chemicals by removing their electrons. Electrons are fairly easy to displaced if enough energy is applied to them. But no nuclear reactions have to take place for this to occur.
So the amount of treatment I received is measured in radiation units. Herein lies the confusion. It will be confused with nuclear energy, which has nothing to do with it. It is merely a chemical imbalance that COULD result as a consequence of exposure to nuclear energy, but not necessarily. I'm pretty sure no atom splitting was taking place to produce the protons used to treat my cancer.
I hope this makes some sense. It is not necessarily an easy thing to understand. But the failure to understand things may cause you to become rather suggestible to certain forms of deception and manipulation. That is what this post is all about--- to hopefully impart some understanding to what is not understood. At least, what appears to me to be misunderstood. It is that misunderstanding and confusion that being employed to scare people into making bad decisions that may have a life and death significance.
In my own case, if I had an inordinate fear of radiation, I wouldn't have chosen proton therapy. My other option would have been surgery. Such a surgery would have been invasive and very hard to recover from. Indeed, if I had to choose that option, I might not be here to make this post. Such could be the price of ignorance.
The moral of that story is not to let yourselves be deceived by people who do not have your best interests at heart.
No comments:
Post a Comment