Veritasium - "The Most Radioactive Places on Earth" review.

Since its upload more than 1 month ago over 1.5 million people have

already viewed Veritasium’s new video measuring radioactivity around the world.

Armed with a neat Geiger counter, Derek visits many of the most infamously

radioactive places on Earth: Trinity Site, Hiroshima, Fukushima and Chernobyl as

well as a Uranium mine, Marie Curie’s office and the stratosphere.

The table below is based on the information provided in the video, but

here I’ve kept the units at per hour, instead of per year, for each example.

Making ionising radiation relatable is difficult, and this video has

highlighted a few important problems that arise with doing just that. For example, the

Sievert does not just consider the radioactive material, but also its proximity

and likely effect on the human body. This video talks about the equivalent

dose, in other words the dose in a fairly homogenous field, like a city. But it

also looks at the dose on a specific organ, in this case the lungs, which must

consider a ‘weighting factor’ - here radioactive smoke comes into direct

contact with the tissue and you have what is known as an ‘effective dose’. 

For example, smokers are much more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers,

but being a smoker may not mean that the chance of developing other cancers is

so severely increased. The dose received on the space station, also mentioned in the video, will act on the entire body.

Different radionuclides (unstable elements) give off different ionizing

radiation at different rates. There are countless books (and trust me when I say

countless!) defining and equating the physics of dosimetry and suitable

protective measures. We are lucky to have this knowledge today as it guides our

use of radioactive material within research and dictates strict commercial

practices. However, its complexity makes it seem like scary jargon.

Using the banana equivalent dose, as in the video and a previous

article, is at least a little bit relatable, but it doesn’t portray the

complexity of ionising radiation and can, I feel, mislead our understanding. Is

that a problem? Does the public need to understand the reasons behind the risk?

Do people really have the time? Or are we missing something in our

explanations, is there not a better more relatable parallel than bananas…

Some of my favourite YouTubers:

Veritasium - 'The science

video blog from atoms to astrophysics!' These are usually about common

misconceptions and debunking myths. Some videos are pretty funny, but you'll

often learn something new.

VSauce - 'Our World is Amazing.' In my opinion, this is one of the most well

informed channels on Youtube. Michael Stevens is able to discuss any

issue, be it scientific, artistic, historical etc... and often digresses

into fascinating detail.

Periodic Videos / Sixty Symbols - Brady Haron asks

professors and experts from (usually) The University of Nottingham questions relating to chemistry or physics, respectively.

Any regular viewer of these channels will come to adore the professors and

lecturers as they explain their fields with passion.

Minute Physics - As the name suggests, this

is physics heavy. But it is generally good at explaining a lot of physical

concepts with a whiteboard in a short space of time.

Kurzgesagt - With one upload per month, this channel is small, but dense

with interesting content. It's also occasionally hilarious.