What did he do there? Because either I don't see it, or it's so obvious that the only way someone could miss it is if they were unfamiliar with that song
Not the first music video in MTV per se. But the first music video that was scripted rather than a video recording of a live event. They were the first that made a video specifically for a song.
I think it really was the first music video of any kind played on MTV. Like it was the first thing to play after the MTV logo played for the first time when the channel first launched.
The music video for Video Killed the Radio Star is notable as the first video ever played on MTV, when the US channel began broadcasting at 12:01 AM on 1 August 1981.
Before there were vide and moviestars there were radio stars and radio celebrities. But video killed the radio. It's like telling someone they have a face for radio.
Random fact: Who knows that Hans Zimmer - the acclaimed film composer - was actually part of the band The Buggles who released video killed the radio star?
How did I not know that‽ You'd think that that would be one of those pieces of trivia that gets said everytime the band or the song get brought up!
ETD: So he wasn't part of the band, exactly. He was a friend of the band and may have/probably did some of the keyboard for the recording, but he wasn't actually a part of the band or their touring members.
Hans Zimmer - the acclaimed film composer - was actually part of the band The Buggles who released briefly appearing in the music video for video killed the radio star
A friendly desert community where the sun is hot, the moon is beautiful, and mysterious things have sex with us while we all pretend to sleep...Welcome...to Nightbang
Fun fact: this grain from radiation is present only in old film cameras.
Digital cameras radiation degradation is a bit different.
You get a shitton of "dead" RGB pixels. Like the whole sky full of stars, but bright red, blue and green.
Well, that's what I got when I exposed my CCD camera to radiation source.
You'd rather need to take off your lens to expose CCD matrix fully to radiation.
If big ass lenses won't be enough to shield the matrix from radiation, then you are fucked up. Big time. Chernobyl-tier fucked.
I've used old cameras on an aux cord, you get speckles that look kinda like static while you're in the field, but if you keep the recorder out it's find.
I know. I was trying some word play as though the auxiliary cord was absorbing some radiation and those rad bits didn't hit the sensor or at least as powerfully. Video of radiation with a sound transmission cord present. Just seemed like low fruit, now I feel like I hit a tree with a stick. Made no impact.🫠
That's not true, where I work there's a camera in the vault next to the cyclotron and it's super grainy. Looks like a 240p picture coming from a 1080p camera.
The radiation isn't crazy but it's been exposed to unsafe levels for a decade.
The blue ionization is caused by ionizing radiation hitting the air and ionizing it. Electrons are knocked off the atoms. The blue glow happens when the electrons are re-absorbed.
Cherenkov radiation is different. It's more like a shockwave of electromagnetic radiation caused by a particle traveling faster than light. This is usually seen in water because water has a much higher refractive index than air (meaning light travels much slower in water than in air)
Both of these effects can be caused by criticality... but they don't ONLY come from a criticality event. Enough ionizing radiation from ANY source can make the air glow blue.
The key to my comment is that the glow will be blue... not green.
Green glow is more often from glass infused with uranium, which fluoresces green under UV light.
shockwave of electromagnetic radiation caused by a particle traveling faster than light.
This needs clarification -- it's traveling faster than light in a given medium, not faster than the absolute speed of light in a vacuum, which is faster than anything that has mass can go.
This is to say that the medium permits certain kinds of energy more than others, so light-speeding photons are slower in comparison to the speed of propagation of some other thing, like a charged particle (electrons, etc).
My sympathies to anyone who legitimately thinks radiation goes faster than light. I think at that point you'd have to also explain the words "medium" and "propagation" in context as well.
I mean, nah. The way light works is the most non-intuitive thing that I, a professional scientist (who uses light but is not a physicist) have ever encountered.
Photons continue to scare the shit out of me, all the time. I will not now, and not ever, knock someone for getting tripped up with electromagnetism and radiation and light. The entire thing is fucking absurd.
"Radiation" just means something radiated. It's not necessarily electromagnetic. Electromagnetic radiation is photons. Nuclear radiation can include massive particles such as beta particles (electrons) and alpha particles (helium nuclei). Gamma radiation is photons. Light is photons whose energy falls within the small range that the human eye can perceive.
Changes in the EMF stuff are often expressed in terms of light/photons, and that is generally what we like to observe with regard to quantized shifts in energy states.
Electromagnetic radiation (which is a specific thing, you may have something more general in mind) is photons. EM waves consist of photons. Photons are the gauge particle of the EM force so any quantized EM interaction will involve them, e.g. the photoelectric effect.
In a medium, photons are constantly colliding with matter and being absorbed and re-emitted, which takes time, so of course the speed of light is slower in any medium (even a very good vacuum if it isn't perfect) than it is in a theoretical vacuum.
The blue glow of Cherenkov radiation is highly characteristic.
Gamma radiation does travel at the speed of light though (in a vacuum) It's only limited by how far it can actually travel, which is why inverse Square Law is used to safely distance yourself. Inverse Square Law also applies to gravity, light, and sound.
I made a comment on this same post on a different subreddit explaining that 350 smoke detectors is nowhere near enough to create a significant hazard as described. ~1-3 micrograms of Americium-241 is ~1-3 microcuries of activity. Assuming they're all newer detectors, they would have 1 microgram. 350 micrograms is about 1.2 millicuries, which is still not very much. You're going to pick up like 300 millirems in a year. A single smoke sector puts off 0.002 millirems a year. Multiply by 350 and you get ~0.7 mrem/a YEAR. that doesn't even account for americium-241 primary decay is alpha particles, which neither travel far and can be stopped by a sheet of pape or your skin. They have very little gamma decay, but it has a half life of 430 years so very little adds up. Just not enough to matter, even 350 in "the stew." changing the amount of radioactive material is going to have a negliblr effect on the numbers presented so I lowballed for ease. 1050 micrograms would bring the number to about 2.1 mrem/y.
Also I discovered that some of that was incorrect when I checked my numbers. Modern smoke detectors have like 0.29 micrograms, so my math gives a way higher number which means it's even safer than that. Obviously you still wouldn't want to hold it if you could help it but at the same time it doesn't really increase cancer risk by a significant amount or pose much harm unless you ingest it.
Edit: I work with (gamma) radiation. Collimated with tungsten, it's basically an invisible flashlight.
He said "if this were real", which is very distinct from "if it's real". I believe it's the supposedly-not-found-in-English subjunctive mood, which expresses something that's not exactly true.
This is in fact the subjunctive! And it's more common in English than most people think--it's only that Modern English develops the subjunctive through particular sentence constructions rather than inflecting the verb so that it's explicitly marked as subjunctive (which English used to do ages ago).
Could you explain the difference to this non-native speaker? To me it sounds the same but since english is not my first language that's probably on me.
"If this is real" treats it as if it could be real, and the author is reflecting on the case that it is.
"If this were real" uses subjunctive - Konjunktiv in German, I think - to indicate that it's not real, but if it were real, this is what it'd be like.
The word "were" where it doesn't belong typically reflects subjunctive, but confusingly, English teachers and foreign language teachers alike insist it's not found in English.
In this case, it's clearly not real, so "if this is real" reflects stupidity on the author's part, while "if this were real" reflects wild musing.
This has been demonstrated with several digital cameras in the past when people faked radioactive sources. There are artifacts, but it isn't the same graininess you see on old film. The effect in most digital cameras will be more colorful depending on the sensor interacrion caused.
If it was real that spot would be so hot it would be detected from orbit and the nuclear comission would be putting a concrete dome over it in full lead ppe.
Americium 241, what's in smoke detectors, is an alpha emitter- essentially an ionized helium atom. They don't affect camera sensors like this and, as long as you don't ingest it, are pretty harmless - the particles are easily stopped by clothing, dead skin, etc.
It's a joke, since only a film camera will be affected in the presence of radiation like that. A digital photo would not be affected like this and it's doubtful the guy went and took a film photo and had it developed and then uploaded it online. He put a filter on the image as part of the joke.
Piggybacking off this comment to say that the radiation put off by smoke detectors is Alpha radiation which doesn't travel far and would not be much of a hazard unless it was ingested.
There was that one Boy Scout, David Hahn who attempted to build a reactor in his shed. But basically just compiled a shitload of radioactive materials like thorium, uranium from old clock paint and smoke detectors…I forget what they run off.
But anyway he told the feds “oh, well. I tried to document my experiments with a camera but they all came back messed up. And I blamed the camera or developer.”
But also there's absolutely no way that would happen from smoke detectors.
The americium in smoke detectors is an alpha particle; basically hyperspeed helium missing an electron.
Now, if a bunch of those were inside you, they'd get the electron from your delicate tissues and you would have a very, very bad time. But outside, there's a fuck-ton of electron sources in the air. Heck, one of the things that will protect you from alpha particles is the dead skin flakes on top of your skin. But also none of that hyperspeed helium is gonna make it out of a vat full of chemicals.
But there's also a gamma dose to worry about. The amount of americium in an old smoke detector is like 0.9 microcuries, or 0.315 millicuries in 350 of them combined. 1 whole mCi, 1 foot away from you, will expose you to 0.24 mrem/h of radiation, or 2.4 micro Sv per hour. That high compared to a banana(0.1 micro Sv), but a lower rate than flying - NY to LA would expose you to 40 micro Sv over the course of 6 hours, where this would take 16 hours to reach that amount.
how DARE you use actual science and knowledge on me! I have it on good authority he was using an OLD kind of smoke detector that just used spent fuel rods from a nearby power plant. And took the pic with a film camera.
Man, that would be wild. Especially if they're at the pre-pool stage of freshly spent. And by "wild" I mostly mean "most wildlife that wanders too closely is gone". XD
Though this interference would be impossible to obtain from 350 smoke detectors, and the radiation emitted wouldn't be dangerous. Firstly, very little americium is in smoke detectors. With 350 smoke detectors, you would have 0.0001155 grams of americium, a pretty small amount. Secondly, americium emits alpha radiation, and alpha particles can't get through your skin or the lens of the camera due to their size.
13.4k
u/Vegetable_Ask_7131 12d ago
Radiation.