Name: 33.放射線の長期的な生物学的影響、統計、放射線リスク (33. Long-Term Biological Effects of Radiation, Statistics, Radiation Risk)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T10:27:19.000Z
Duration: 51 min 1 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

基礎受動態

The following content is provided under a Creative

Your support will help MIT OpenCourseWare

continue to offer high quality educational resources for free.

To make a donation or to view additional materials

from hundreds of MIT courses, visit MIT OpenCourseWare

We've explained the physical and chemical stages

with mostly bags of water with some solutes in them, better

known as organisms at dynamic equilibrium.

Everything from the sort of femptosecond level, ionization

of water almost certainly, because that's

to the formation of many, many, many, many, many different

radiolysis byproducts eventually that end up as just a few

that we care about, the longer-lived radiolytic

and go on to eat something else, likely DNA or something

that you don't want to get oxidized or chemically changed.

We talked a little bit about radiolysis in reactors

and how you can actually measure it directly

which was only done really a few years ago which is pretty cool.

of high-pressure, high-temperature water.

There is a foil sample with a very thin region and protons

firing through it, so that they both irradiate the sample

and induce radiolysis in the water at the same time.

And this way, you can test the effect of radiolysis

in the water here versus just plain, old, high-pressure,

where you can clearly see the boundary where the proton

beam was as well as the increased thickness

of the oxide and corrosion layer formed when radiolysis

We went through DNA damage, and we ended with pseudoscience.

But we spent the last 15 minutes of class railing

against pseudoscience and making sure that you check your facts,

So aside from just that guy misreading everything

on that entire blog, of the studies that you felt

weren't very convincing, what do you remember about them?

Some of those studies were totally fine, but some of them

AUDIENCE: The ones with particularly small sample

MICHAEL SHORT: That's what I was hoping someone would say.

where they held their cell phones, four, right?

Or in a study of 29 humans, 11 of them got brain tumors here.

It's pretty easy to cherry pick small amounts of data.

I did want to say that just because radio frequency

photons aren't ionizing, doesn't mean they can't hurt you.

If you've ever-- no, no one's ever been inside a microwave.

I wonder if anyone's ever felt the effects

of an external microwave being by something like this,

One of my favorite weapons ever, because it doesn't actually

It just heats up the outer layer of your skin.

It fires these non-ionizing photons at RF frequency

and effectively makes you feel like you're on fire.

So if there's a whole mess of troops charging at you--

let's say at the DMZ from North and South Korea--

all you've got to do is turn on this thing,

because their body is sending them signals that I'm on fire.

And then you turn it off, and they're OK.

a lot of maybe psychological, but whatever,

MICHAEL SHORT: Active denial system, great name for it,

Yeah, I think non-lethal weapons are really the way

of the future is just make it unpleasant to engage

But then no one has to get hurt, which is nice.

But then onto the sources of data, because like Sarah said,

sample size is everything, especially when you're

trying to figure out, are small amounts of radiation

been answered suitably yet, and that's because, thank god,

to small but measurable amounts of radiation

to draw meaningful conclusions from this data.

I think that's a good thing, is if we were certain about

like one millisieverts, could cause cancer,

字幕リスト動画再生

33.放射線の長期的な生物学的影響、統計、放射線リスク (33. Long-Term Biological Effects of Radiation, Statistics, Radiation Risk)

stuff

massive

immune

metabolism