Slashdot Mirror


Gamma Rays From Thunderclouds

KentuckyFC sends us a report of gamma rays detected at a Japanese nuclear plant, whose origin was thunderclouds high overhead (abstract, article PDF). The theory is that showers of electrons caused by cosmic rays, when they encounter the high electric fields present in thunderstorm clouds, can be accelerated to energies above 10 MeV and result in bremsstrahlung photons detectable on the ground.

104 comments

  1. Nature's own linear accelerator! by atomicthumbs · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just fling electrons at the blue planet where the electricity is, and see if you can hit the little dust-specks. Like billiards! Anyway, it's fun to know that each time there's a thunderstorm, and a random electron flies in from somewhere in the universe, you're getting bombarded with braking radiation. Although, considering that I'm doing experiments with X-rays in my garage, I probably shouldn't worry about that. :) also, first post (if my calculations are correct).

    --
    http://pinopsida.com
    1. Re:Nature's own linear accelerator! by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

      This may explain why people with solar panels experience small peaks when cloud edges first hit their panels.

      I forget what the term for it is in the Solar community (cloud edge, or something).

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
  2. I suspect that the biggest consequence of this by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is that five or six months down the line, the Incredible Hulk will start controlling electricity.

    1. Re:I suspect that the biggest consequence of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japanese Hulk - smashu! Spit in Godzirra's eye! Ptooey! Nuclear power - good! Hulk loogie - bad! Beware! I kick Transformer's sad American ass!

    2. Re:I suspect that the biggest consequence of this by Spudtrooper · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's getting cloudy. You wouldn't like me when it's cloudy.

  3. Or Lightning Fusing Hydrogen? by DumbSwede · · Score: 4, Informative

    Or possibly the fusion of deuterium/hydrogen in rain water by lightning?

    I actually posted an article about this back in 2005. Lightning Fusion And Other Hot News

    1. Re:Or Lightning Fusing Hydrogen? by atomicthumbs · · Score: 1

      So would that mean that the Z-Machine at Sandia National Labs imitates nature, or the other way around?

      --
      http://pinopsida.com
    2. Re:Or Lightning Fusing Hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, fusion should produce fast neutrons, not gamma rays.

    3. Re:Or Lightning Fusing Hydrogen? by Fyz · · Score: 1

      Very funny. Get back to work!!!

    4. Re:Or Lightning Fusing Hydrogen? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Then gamma ray production should be in sync with lightning strikes. The article you cited way back when would seem to support this interpretation.

    5. Re:Or Lightning Fusing Hydrogen? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      It is a good thing I added a lead foil hat to my tin foil one.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  4. Where's An Evil Overlord When You Need One? by STrinity · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is going to make the best James Bond movie ever.

    --
    Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
  5. If there are gamma rays from clouds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have they been detected in satellite gamma-ray detectors? Would this have caused a problem for any researchers?

    Just my two tenths of a cent, it's a lazy Sunday.

  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. EMI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They ruled out some spectrum of non-gamma EMI from the lightning discharge wasn't getting into the test equipment and giving false readings?

  8. Not so simple by DumbSwede · · Score: 4, Informative

    And neutrons will crash into other nuclei and there will be secondary fissions and fusions. Neither fission nor fusion is an entirely straight forward reaction with only one set of byproducts. Muon catalyzed fusion produces gamma rays directly.

    Our own star the Sun produces gamma rays from the PP-I fusion chain 4 1H 1 4He + 2 positrons + 2 neutrinos + 2 gamma rays The by-products provide the source of luminosity: * Positrons: anti-electrons (e+) - collide with electrons (e-) * Neutrinos: rapidly escape from the star * Gamma rays (photons): travel outwards through star interacting many times with atomic gas. Energy is also provided by the PP-II and PP-III chains

    1. Re:Not so simple by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      mhmm. except that the mechanism provided by this study is vastly more plausable and the older paper claiming neutrons from fusion in lightning were never published in a reputable journal, let alone replicated by any one else.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    2. Re:Not so simple by mako1138 · · Score: 1

      Fusion in storm clouds would produce fast neutrons, which have a very low probability of colliding with anything. Their mean free path in normal atmosphere is huge. You wouldn't expect to be able to localize them (or their products) to a single thundercloud/storm, given the small numbers produced.

  9. I thought the atmosphere was opaque to gamma rays by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    The gamma ray observatories have to be in orbit. How is someone on the ground detecting gamma rays?

  10. This is new ????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have chaired sessions at meetings of the American Geophysical Union where this topic was discussed - over ten years ago!

    THe Stanford radio science group is very active in modelling runaway electron acceleration such as this. In addition to gamma rays, free neutrons can also be produced.

    1. Re:This is new ????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have swept up after meetings of the American Geophysical Union where this topic was discussed - over ten years ago!
      Fixed.

    2. Re:This is new ????? by jddj · · Score: 2, Funny

      In addition to gamma rays, free neutrons can also be produced.

      If I order a couple cases, is there a shipping charge?

  11. Re:I thought the atmosphere was opaque to gamma ra by mikael · · Score: 1

    scintillation crystals

    Apparently the border guards are having problems telling the difference between kitty litter and enrich uranium

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  12. Re:I thought the atmosphere was opaque to gamma ra by Ambitwistor · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are ground based gamma ray detectors (Google). They don't detect the gamma rays directly, but rather the showers as the gamma rays interact with molecules in the atmosphere.

  13. Re:Wow. That's some high energy Gamma Rays by pln2bz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Thus, in theory, a gamma photon of such a high energy level could dislodge a neutron or possibly a proton from a nucleus. I would tend to think this sort of natural transmutation would be exceedingly rare, but it's still interesting, because it could impact on the distribution of elements and isotopes on earth.

    Welcome to the Electric Universe Theory, btw. Now, just imagine that lightning can extend between space and through the ground to the Earth's core. And imagine that bodies in space can possess and trade electrical charge with the space they travel through, and even, on rare occasions, with each other. This would explain what the magnetosphere is. No mysterious "dynamo" is necessary. The magnetosphere is just a plasma sheath. When two planets approach one another for whatever reason, the size of these lightning bolts can be on the scale of New York City, and this explains why we see some rilles all throughout the solar system that move both up and down with the terrain, in apparent violation of gravity. This would explain why the Colorado River travels right through the Kaibab Upwarp, and why there is no apparent "outflow" or delta associated with the Grand Canyon (the material was excavated into space). We can actually see this process occurring *right now* on Io and the excavated material forms a unique plume shape that precisely mimics the morphology generated by an electrical plasma gun. NASA is about to discover something somewhat similar happening on Enceladus, but the plume has been replaced with something much more similar to a cometary tail. This would also explain the enigmatic Tycho and Aristarchus craters on the Moon, whose apparent debris fields are not debris fields at all, but rather burn scars or excavated material.

    If all of this is true, then we should expect to see some validation of these concepts within crater studies. And in fact, this is exactly what we see in many instances. For instance, many craters have terraced edges, which is a rather clear indication that we're seeing twisting Birkeland Currents dig into the ground deeper as they rotate. We also see many craters that have thin spires in their centers, which can also suggest a rotating force that did not rotate enough to excavate the material at the very center. We see these same morphologies on comets and asteroids too. Comets are really just asteroids on elliptical orbits actually. When two plasma spheres come into contact, they will tend to equalize in charge distribution if they have significantly different charges. This can explain why some "impacts" like the Tunguska event leave no trace of an impacting body, and why there were two flashes in the Deep Impact Mission at the time of contact.

    Things start to get extremely interesting though once you start to apply EU Theory to tornadoes. Tornadoes are almost certainly charged sheath vortexes. They are electrical plasma phenomenon, and eyewitnesses who have been lucky enough to survive tornadoes explain that the insides of the vortex can flicker with a weak luminosity. One person has even successfully created a micro-tornado within a petri dish using nothing but salt and a voltage difference through it. Tornadoes serve a purpose similar to lightning in that they equalize charge imbalances between the atmosphere and ground like a leaky capacitor. The Van Allen radiation belts act as a sort of toroidal capacitor which circles the planet and acts as the source of many, if not all, of the lightning discharges we see. We can see that they are perturbed when lightning strikes occur, and a global map of lightning strikes demonstrates that they occur more frequently directly beneath the Van Allen radiation belts. In fact, the homopolar motor morphology is the fundamental morphology for planets, stars and galaxies.

    Elemental transmutation is in all likelihood more prevalent in the universe and even here on Earth than mainstream scientists currently accept, and probably most of it occurs in highly transient a

    --
    "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
  14. Gamma Rays, not Cosmic Rays, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This could have been a collection of HULK/GODZILLA quips, but a few "EXPERTS" had to ruin it for the rest of us. Fuckin' gamma-ray specialists! Count the posts before me, apparently nobody gives a poop any-hoo!

    Signed,

    The Cowardly Lion

    PS - Someone could have at least made a Fantastic Four comment so everyone else could have corrected them.

  15. Re:Wow. That's some high energy Gamma Rays by mefein · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Terrestrial Gamma-ray Flashes were discovered in 1994 by BATSE - a space based experiment that operated in the 90's. They are quite common (several per day). It is amazing that there are such efficient accelerators in the Earths atmosphere.

    GLAST , is a new gamma-ray mission which will launch early next year and will have the capability to measure TGFs up to much higher energies -- so we will get to really understand the acceleration mechanism. Both instruments on GLAST are designed to observe the celestial sky, but they have such large fields of view that they can also simultaneously make observations of the Earth for at least some of the time.

  16. Re:I thought the atmosphere was opaque to gamma ra by FunkyRider · · Score: 1

    Isn't that what makes your films exposed? oh wait...

    --
    just wonder why there are so many anonymous cowards in this world....
  17. Popping light bulbs and flat batteries by mikael · · Score: 1

    I guess that explains why my light bulbs keep popping and the batteries in my remote controls keep going flat whenever there's stormy weather.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    1. Re:Popping light bulbs and flat batteries by st1d · · Score: 1

      >>>I guess that explains why my light bulbs keep popping and the batteries in my remote controls keep going flat whenever there's stormy weather.

      ***Occam's Razor Unsheathed***

      Keep them out of the drink!

      ***Occam's Razor Sheathed*** :)

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
  18. Some numbers by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 3, Informative

    A basic calculation indicates that as many as 0.7-3% of 10 MeV gammas could make it down from 2000 m. Put another way, any gamma headed for their detector will make it there about that percentage of the time. Starting with a high flux could mean that a significant number of gammas make it to the scintillators, which can trigger off of relatively small numbers of photons.

    That having been said, 2000m is the lower end of the altitude range (as I understand it) for storm clouds, and my calculation assumed dry air at sea level. The attenuation of photons does go up pretty sharply as you get to energies less than 10 MeV, as well.

  19. Bump that story! by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 2, Funny

    The story so nice, they posted it twice. ... and still only 23 comments.

    --
    George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  20. They are X-rays, not gamma rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless they originate from a nuclear field, they are still x-rays. Various particle accelerator sources of photons are high energy, but they are x-ray sources.

    1. Re:They are X-rays, not gamma rays by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Unless they originate from a nuclear field, they are still x-rays
      I've never heard that definition of gamma radiation before. By convention photons are usually classified by energy: radio, microwave, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, x-ray. But really, a photon is a photon. It is all "gamma radiation"
    2. Re:They are X-rays, not gamma rays by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Well, you learn something new everyday.

      The border between x-rays and gamma isnt defined by energy.

      There are gamma decays with only a few 10s of keV (just take any mösbauer experiment), and there are
      x-rays in the many 100keV range (Uranium K-line, High energy undulators at the higher electron energy synchrotrons like SPring8, ESRF or APS).

      For that reason in the range between 10keV and 1MeV, to avoid confusion, stuff is usually named by how it is made.
      Although to be fair, starting at multi-MeV, the distinction kinda loses its point.
      End lets not get started with the more or less arbitrary distinction between cosmic rays (the photon kind) and gamma rays (i have seen values between 100MeV and 10s of GeV for the threshold...)

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:They are X-rays, not gamma rays by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      I understand that the distinction is useful to somebody, in certain cases. But as far as I know the only distinguishing characteristic of a photon is its energy. Are you saying that an instrument could tell the difference between a cosmic ray @ 1 MeV and a fission gamma @ 1 MeV?

    4. Re:They are X-rays, not gamma rays by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yup. The cosmic ray usually isn't a photon, it's a particle of some type that slams into the atmosphere and turns into a bunch of other particles, which slam into the atmosphere some more and eventually turn into some sort of photon. That is opposed to the gamma ray which IS a photon.

    5. Re:They are X-rays, not gamma rays by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      You replay doesn't answer the question I was trying to ask. Obviously you can distinguish between a gamma and a neutron, beta, alpha, positron, etc.

      Do two gammas at the exact same energy have any way to distinguish them based on their origin?

    6. Re:They are X-rays, not gamma rays by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

      I think you didn't get him. Either that or you need to define the sources of your "different" gamma rays at the same energy.

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    7. Re:They are X-rays, not gamma rays by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that an instrument could tell the difference between a cosmic ray @ 1 MeV and a fission gamma @ 1 MeV?


      I guess you didn't succeed in asking the question you wanted to.

      The answer to your new question is that, no, you can't distinguish a gamma ray from a gamma ray when they both have the exact same energy -- they are exactly the same.

      The answer to the question I think you're TRYING to ask, can you distinguish an x-ray from a gamma ray of the same energy, is no, not if you only have a detector to work with. The distinction is entirely on the production side. Often you can tell because they're not the same energy though -- the processes that produce gamma and x-rays tend to produce more of them at particular energies.

      In this case, since they're saying they know the source of the radiation, there should be no doubt about whether it's x-rays or gammas.
    8. Re:They are X-rays, not gamma rays by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1
      Back to the original post:

      Unless they originate from a nuclear field, they are still x-rays. Various particle accelerator sources of photons are high energy, but they are x-ray sources.
      All I was trying to say is that this statement is only true for a certain set of definitions. In terms of the inherent properties of the photons there is no difference between x-ray and gamma radiation, unless you draw some arbitrary boundary based on energy.
    9. Re:They are X-rays, not gamma rays by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes. The correct definition. ;)

      You're right, the definition seems a little pointless until you understand a bit more about it. To start with, it's a bit of a historical thing, since x-rays and gamma rays were discovered at different times. Actually, all of the divisions in the EM spectrum are where they are mostly for historical reasons, which in turn are mostly due to the different processes that are required to produce the radiation. You can make radio waves by varying an electric current, but you (before LEDs) needed to heat something up to get IR, visible and UV. X-rays were produced by bombarding a target with electrons. Gammas produced by nuclear processes.

      The naming does make sense though -- you're normally not so interested in the radiation itself but rather in where it came from. Normally the energy spectrum of the radiation gives away whether it's x-rays or gamma rays as well. So yes, practically, you can usually tell whether some detected radiation is gamma or x-rays by looking at the distribution of energies. Not for a single photon, but you rarely measure those except in things like particle accelerators where you know if it's an x-ray or gamma anyway.

      Actually, I think the original poster has it backwards. Most particle accelerator sources produce gamma rays because the source is nuclear decay processes. For example, crashing positrons into electrons produces a pair of gamma rays (at a very particular energy).

    10. Re:They are X-rays, not gamma rays by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      you're normally not so interested in the radiation itself but rather in where it came from
      Your DNA molecules couldn't care less about the finer points of the X-ray vs. gamma ray distinction. Macroscopic cross-section and energy are the only things that matter at that level.
    11. Re:They are X-rays, not gamma rays by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      There are interesting features of EM radiation other than radiation sickness.

  21. I for one ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome our new Gigantic Sprite overlords ...

  22. Radiation Overdose? by soccer_Dude88888 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If thunderclouds can accelerate radiation energy, how come I never heard of people died in places where there are lots of thuderstorm activities due to radiation overdose?

    Besides, even though there is no thunderstorm, cosmic rays can generate energy up to 1GeV.

    1. Re:Radiation Overdose? by StrongAxe · · Score: 3, Informative

      If thunderclouds can accelerate radiation energy, how come I never heard of people died in places where there are lots of thuderstorm activities due to radiation overdose?

      The gamma rays were only detected because they were near a nuclear power plant. Presumably such plants have very sensitive radiation detection equipment, and the number of ACTUAL gamma ray photos is sufficiently low that only very sensitive equipment could actually notice them.

    2. Re:Radiation Overdose? by st1d · · Score: 1

      >>>If thunderclouds can accelerate radiation energy, how come I never heard of people died in places where there are lots of thuderstorm activities due to radiation overdose?

      Um, lightning?

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    3. Re:Radiation Overdose? by Inverted+Intellect · · Score: 1

      If thunderclouds can accelerate radiation energy, how come I never heard of people died in places where there are lots of thuderstorm activities due to radiation overdose?
      Um, lightning?

      Interesting... I wonder, how much of the electrical discharge is actually released as photons? And what exactly is the process by which they harm the things they strike, so to speak... ? For some reason, I've never actually considered the process by which lightning makes light.

    4. Re:Radiation Overdose? by tenco · · Score: 1

      Presumably such plants have very sensitive radiation detection equipment

      The scientists installed their own equipment. From TFA:

      "Installed at the rooftop of a building in this power plant, our [editor: the authors...] new automated radiation detection system has been continuously and successfully operated since 2006 December 22."

    5. Re:Radiation Overdose? by ZombieWomble · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Humans are much more tolerant to (relatively) small amounts of radiation than people often think. Depending on where you live, your average yearly dose can vary by almost a factor of 1,000 - the relative dose from such events in thunderstorms is much less than this variation in background, given how little is produced by any given event.

      Also, while 1GeV is a typical cosmic ray energy, they can go much much higher. The "Oh my god" particle had an energy of around 50 Joules. That's comprable to a well-hit tennisball, which is a whopping amount of energy for a subatomic particle.

    6. Re:Radiation Overdose? by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ionizing radiation is much like most other poisons in that dose is critical in determining subsequent health effects. You are--right now--not only being bombarded by tiny amounts of ionizing radiation from most things around you, but your body tissues themselves are releasing ionizing radiation: they contain completely natural but radioactive potassium-40. It is, however, a very, very low level of radiation.

      According to our best theories--which, to be honest, are not by any means set in stone--there is no absolutely safe lower threshold for radiation exposure IF you consider the chances for causing cancer and genetic effects. These are called "stochastic" radiation effects, because they are best described in terms of risk and probability and do not have definite thresholds. For acute radiation toxicity--vomiting, blistering, and so on--there are fairly well-defined threshold doses; these radiation sicknesses are called "deterministic" effects because we can safely say that, given a certain amount of damage, you have a certain (high) chance of acute radiation sickness. These latter effects are similar to other toxic substances, in that they are talked about in terms of doses that have some specific chance (say, 50% or 99%) of causing an effect.

      The amount of radiation-induced damage caused by the gammas released by a thunderstorm is very likely to be well below the thresholds for deterministic effecs, which means that an average person has essentially no chance of developing acute radiation sickness from a thunderstorm. Exposure to low levels of radiation may increase your chance of developing cancer, but such an increase is naturally impossible to quantify.

    7. Re:Radiation Overdose? by sjames · · Score: 1

      According tothe graphs in he paper, at peakthey detected 1900 photons/sec. That's a very low intensity exposure. As you summised it's only noticable to a very sensitive detector. For comparison, a 60 Watt bulb emits 10 to the 20th power photons per second. 1900/second for a few seconds won't even show up on a dosimeter much less kill someone.

  23. Re:Wow. That's some high energy Gamma Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's some bad hat, Harry.

  24. Depends on who you're talking to. by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's really one of those jargon-related things that happen so often in physics. Your average physicist uses "intensity" in ways that make optical scientists rip their hair out, since in optics intensity has a very specific definition. In the same vein, radiation scientists reserve "gamma" to describe photons originating from nuclear processes. Physicists in other specializations generally just go by energy because gammas tend to be higher in energy than X-rays. It's not necessarily the case though.

  25. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the importance of this?

  26. Exactly by Kythe · · Score: 1

    The theory is that showers of electrons caused by cosmic rays, when they encounter the high electric fields present in thunderstorm clouds, can be accelerated to energies above 10 MeV and result in bremsstrahlung photons detectable on the ground.


    Sure. I was just going to say that. :)
    --

    Kythe
    1. Re:Exactly by dbIII · · Score: 2, Funny

      result in bremsstrahlung photons detectable on the ground.

      It is braking news about radiation after all.

    2. Re:Exactly by v1980z · · Score: 0

      damn, he stole your thunder

    3. Re:Exactly by AWeishaupt · · Score: 1

      If this physics geek had mod points right now, the above comment would be getting modded up.

  27. Re:Wow. That's some high energy Gamma Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uhhhh.....what?

  28. Re:I thought the atmosphere was opaque to gamma ra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They get little people to run round pointing geiger counters at the sky.

  29. Re:I thought the atmosphere was opaque to gamma ra by Detritus · · Score: 1

    Relatively opaque. 100 meters of atmosphere (sea level) will absorb about 50% of the gamma rays.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  30. Bull sh*t by riffzifnab · · Score: 3, Funny

    I call shinanagans. If this was true there would be a whole lot more green people running around smashing things. Everyone knows that gamma rays = Hulk, its a proven scientific fact.

    1. Re:Bull sh*t by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      What? no, most of the time it kills you. You only get Hulkinization if the test subject is particularly moody and bottles up their emotions. These seemingly contradictory requirements are necessary conditions, though they may not be sufficient.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Bull sh*t by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      What? no, most of the time it kills you. You only get Hulkinization if the test subject is particularly moody and bottles up their emotions. These seemingly contradictory requirements are necessary conditions, though they may not be sufficient.

      OK, so there will be no emo-Hulks. Good enough for me.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    3. Re:Bull sh*t by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot, all we have are a bunch of spideys. They too release a sticky white fluid via a wrist action.

      --
      C|N>K
  31. I know one way to find out for sure. by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

    Tesla coils in a rainstorm with Geiger counters.

    --
    The game.
  32. Re:Wow. That's some high energy Gamma Rays by MLopat · · Score: 1

    You know this has been proven false by more than a few people more than a few times over? Do a search for yourself and save the embarrassment of spewing someone else's literary diarrhea. For anyone that took the time to read the comment above, this theory is easily dismissed by the fact that electrons flowing TO the sun have NEVER been detected with the explanation from the believers of the electric model being "we're not looking hard enough"

  33. slashdot has failed me. by J.+T.+MacLeod · · Score: 3, Funny

    With 41 comments, I expected at least ONE Incredible Hulk reference.

    You're all very bad nerds.

    1. Re:slashdot has failed me. by oPless · · Score: 1

      You need your glasses checked!

      The post above yours has a hulk reference :-)

    2. Re:slashdot has failed me. by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Dude, did it take you over half an hour to compose that reply? There was at least one comment posted referencing the Hulk a full 34 minutes prior to yours. What, did you do a Google search to find something clever to come up with or something?

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  34. Re:Wow. That's some high energy Gamma Rays by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

    this theory is easily dismissed by the fact that electrons flowing TO the sun have NEVER been detected with the explanation from the believers of the electric model being "we're not looking hard enough"

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have NO way to detect electrons that don't strike normal matter? As in, if I send a stream of electrons 10 meters away from you in your spaceship, aren't you completely oblivious to what I did if I missed?

    We also haven't detected one species splitting into two -- does that mean that evolution's a load of crap?

  35. Re:Wow. That's some high energy Gamma Rays by niklask · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have NO way to detect electrons that don't strike normal matter? As in, if I send a stream of electrons 10 meters away from you in your spaceship, aren't you completely oblivious to what I did if I missed?

    You are wrong. Electrons in magnetic fields radiate synchrotron radiation and wee know that the Solar system and the Milky Way is pervaded by magnetic fields.

  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Wait a minute... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I thought this article was supposed to be about KFC coming up with a new way to cook chicken wings.

    1. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From England, we hear that the colonel is starting a designer label of clothing made entirely of chicken feathers. It's called KFCuk.

  38. Where have I seen this before? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Funny

    A Japanese nuclear plant, cosmic rays, thunderclouds? What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  39. This is self evidently garbage. by bombastinator · · Score: 1

    the reason it is crud,

    A.) There is more than one nuclear plant in the world, and most o them get rained on at one time or another.
    B.) Nuclear plants check constantly for even the lowest levels of radiation.
    C.) Japan does not have magic special super clouds.

    If this theory were true we'd have heard about it years and years ago he first time there was a big thunderstorm at a Nuclear plant.

    1. Re:This is self evidently garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C.) Japan does not have magic special super clouds. Yes they do!
      Monkey Magic anyone?

      - Seks
    2. Re:This is self evidently garbage. by jd · · Score: 1
      C.) Japan does not have magic special super clouds.

      Monkey, Great Sage, equal of Heaven, may be visiting. But in that case, the cloud would be pink.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:This is self evidently garbage. by iamlucky13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure if you're joking or not, so I'll reply anyways. From the paper:

      A.) This is regularly detected at multiple nuclear plants, but is not caused by them. It is serendipitous because the plants already the gamma-ray detectors for operational monitoring.

      B.) Superlatives like "lowest levels of radiation" are seldom meaningful in science. The detectors would have a minimum level they can reliably sense. Also, they can't determine the direction or frequency of the photons. The team that authored this paper set up a detector that can. Presumably they chose to set it up at that particular plant so they could correlate their detailed observations with those from the plant's detectors.

      C.) The research was conducted by the University of Tokyo and the Japanese Space Agency (and others). The effect is not unique to Japan, rather the work was done in Japan. And yes, Japan does have magic special super clouds, but they are licensed to the makers of the Final Fantasy series.

      Lastly, the effect was first suggested in 1925, but hasn't been investigated much since. Again, it's not caused by the nuclear plant (the submitter wasn't very clear about that). The plant just happened to be a convenient laboratory.

    4. Re:This is self evidently garbage. by bombastinator · · Score: 1

      DOH! I was somehow connecting this with the earthquake based radiation release at a Japanese nuclear plant earlier. It sounded like this was being used as a cover to explain away the issue as an atmospheric effect rather than admit it actually happened.

      Too many Japanese nuclear plants in the news in a short amount of time I guess.

      You got to admit it's odd though. If they've been playing with this since the 20's and all, Why are they suddenly studying it in japan right after a hugely embarrassing accident? It still looks like a spin control stunt.

      I guess it's like NASA sending a light sabre into space so folks will forget about NASAs romantic issues. Sort of making "Luke, I am your father" out of "Who's your daddy!"

    5. Re:This is self evidently garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which hugely embarrassing accident is that? Are you referring to the two spills that occurred during the last big earthquake in Japan? One of them was stopped by secondary containment without a problem. The second resulted in radiation levels in the water around the plant only a billionth higher than background levels, and as far as I know was just a couple hundred gallons of tritiated water, which has a half life of only 12.5 years and dilutes easily. It only seemed like a big deal because the press knows there's a lot of people out there willing to freak out everytime even the tiniest things goes wrong at a nuclear power plant.

      They aren't "suddenly" studying it. The paper indicates they started the work about a year ago, and the researchers in question aren't directly involved in the nuclear industry. They're astronomers or meteorologists from the University of Tokyo and JAXA.

      You're reading too much into both of these submissions. The light-saber isn't a cover for the Nowak scandal. NASA does publicity events all the time. A couple months ago Sunni Williams ran 26 miles on the treadmill on the ISS at the same time as the Boston Marathon, for example. The light saber is because Star Wars was released 30 years ago, and most space enthusiasts are Star Wars fans.

      Besides, I hardly see any need to draw attention away from it. It doesn't affect their ability to do their job and it led to a re-assessment of the stresses of working as an astronaut, which will probably result in better work policies.

  40. Bremsstrahlung photons from clouds by The+Media+Mechanic · · Score: 3, Funny

    HOLY CRAP... BREMSSTRAHLUNG PHOTONS from frikkin BASIC FLUFFY CLOUDS IN THE SKY. What's next, some goshdarned erenkov radiation being emitted from like, Innocent Little Bunny Rabbits?! Or like, some freaking Antideuterium Particles shooting out of Very Cute Baby Kittens ??

    --
    I can throw as many stones as I wish; my house is made of transparent aluminum.
    1. Re:Bremsstrahlung photons from clouds by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Put the bunny back in the box.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  41. So by unity100 · · Score: 1

    when are we going to see first godzilla invasion ?

  42. Why now ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    why until now this wasnt discovered ? radiation measurement is not something new, we are even able to map distant galaxies with radio telescopes, listen to background radiation with passive telescopes. clouds arent something new ? why did this discovery wait until now ?

  43. Suspected relation by RogerWilco · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is a suspected but yet unproven relation between cosmic rays and lightning. The theory is that when a cosmic particle strikes the atmophere, it ionises a path though the atmophere. This then provides a conduit for lightning.
    This is currently a hot research topic in particle physics and meteorology.

    A professor in Nijmegen and a collegue of mine are studying this phenomena (Heino Falcke and Lars Bähren)
    http://www.physorg.com/news4162.html
    http://www.lofar.org/workshop/23Apr07_Monday02/LOF ARWorkshop_Apr07_HeinoFalcke.pdf

    --
    RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    1. Re:Suspected relation by hughk · · Score: 1

      Seems more likely to me. 10MeV is one heck of a potential to build up in a Thundercloud. The idea of an something external with high energy acting as a trigger seems a rather neat solution of how to get the massive flashovers that are lightning.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  44. Re:Wow. That's some high energy Gamma Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We also haven't detected one species splitting into two

    Yes we have.

  45. old news by turing_m · · Score: 1

    Those with a taste for good metal would have detected Gamma Ray in Japan after their album "Sigh No More" in 1992. Though I have no idea how they managed to get into a nuclear base.

    --
    If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
  46. Interesting by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    Interesting discovery that a high-voltage, high current discharge can produce high-energy photons. Who didn't know that one? Gammas and hard X-Rays are the same thing, just differentiated by their source. X-Rays come from electron interactions and gammas from nuclear processes. Gotta figure that some electrons will be excited to higher than average energies during a lightning bolt and produce some really energetic X-Rays that will be detected as gammas. Although, I have to admit I am still much more worried about being hit by the lightning bolt itself rather than a miniscule amount of radiation from the discharge. What are we talking about here, about 1 micro-REM per lifetime?

  47. Re:Wow. That's some high energy Gamma Rays by Kagura · · Score: 1

    It's like a car wreck. You just can't look away.

  48. Re:I thought the atmosphere was opaque to gamma ra by jd · · Score: 1

    Google is a gamma ray detector? Well, I suppose they would index high energy radiation - they index everything else.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  49. Offtopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't need to fall back on the electric universe theory to explain lightning, or even the accelleration of particles due to lightning. The Lorentz force has been long and well established, and lightning is caused by the transport of charged particles by convection. It occurs in a net neutral, electrically closed system, the exact opposite of what EU claims.

    But since you bring up EU once again (and in a much less relevant discussion than previously), the Grand Canyon does not have a delta because it doesn't let out into a static body of water. It ends in...surprise...more river. The Colorado river does terminate in a delta.

    Trying to use EU to explain away erosion and meteor impacts is just plain silly. There is a complete lack of evidence for it, where as the cutting through stratification and the crater formation modelling and hypervelocity impact testing (which perfectly explains your center "spires") are almost immutable support for more ordinary phenoma like water erosion and big rocks hitting things moving really fast.

    And tornadoes are a pressure phenomenon. The fact that there is lightning associated with them doesn't change that.

    At some point you're going to have to stop posting crap until you've come up with a consistent theory starting from the bottom up and have some math and observations (like a net current toward the sun of a magnitude capable of supporting the sun's output). If EU is right, or even remotely close to right, it should be possible to come up with this.

    1. Re:Offtopic by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      You don't need to fall back on the electric universe theory to explain lightning

      No, then what are Sprites?

      The Lorentz force has been long and well established, and lightning is caused by the transport of charged particles by convection. It occurs in a net neutral, electrically closed system, the exact opposite of what EU claims.

      Then why do we see it occasionally going into space? Why would lightning be traveling outside of your electrically closed system?

      But since you bring up EU once again (and in a much less relevant discussion than previously), the Grand Canyon does not have a delta because it doesn't let out into a static body of water. It ends in...surprise...more river. The Colorado river does terminate in a delta.

      You ignore the fact that the Colorado river goes straight through the Kaibab Upwarp. Rivers tend to go around large obstacles rather than cutting through them.

      Trying to use EU to explain away erosion and meteor impacts is just plain silly. There is a complete lack of evidence for it, where as the cutting through stratification and the crater formation modelling and hypervelocity impact testing (which perfectly explains your center "spires") are almost immutable support for more ordinary phenoma like water erosion and big rocks hitting things moving really fast.

      Are you aware that some of these central spires have been observed to retain their stratigraphy?

      And tornadoes are a pressure phenomenon. The fact that there is lightning associated with them doesn't change that.

      That's interesting. Peter Thompson's experiment where he created a tornado within a petri dish used no pressure whatsoever ...

      http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/tornado/fusion/Char ge_sheath_vortex_basics_for_tornado.html

      At some point you're going to have to stop posting crap until you've come up with a consistent theory starting from the bottom up and have some math and observations (like a net current toward the sun of a magnitude capable of supporting the sun's output). If EU is right, or even remotely close to right, it should be possible to come up with this.

      There are plenty of reasons for why EU Theorists could be correct. Focusing on just one mathematical item over-simplifies the issue. Numerous observations suggest that electrical plasmas are common in space. You will never realize this so long as you apply pseudo-skepticism to ATM theories, and refuse to actually read what is being said.
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
  50. Bremsstrahlung does not produce gamma rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bremsstrahlung produces x-ray photons; nuclear reactions produce gamma photons.

  51. Quote from that horrible blog by fontkick · · Score: 1

    "If yer gonna build a quantum computer, yer gonna need some quantum memory to store qubits."

    --

    Yer also gonna need some real good smart folks whose readin' and writin' skills don't come from schoolin' they got down 'n South yonder.

    Excuse me for a while, I need to go read a few books to make up for the five minutes I spent at that redneck blog.

  52. Re:Wow. That's some high energy Gamma Rays by pln2bz · · Score: 1

    You know this has been proven false by more than a few people more than a few times over?

    Are you referring to Tim Thompson's critique of The Electric Sun Theory? That's been rebutted ...

    http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm

    Do a search for yourself and save the embarrassment of spewing someone else's literary diarrhea.

    I've been "searching" for a year now, and I'm fairly familiar with the debate. Contrary to your own assertion, there is a debate here. Many people will actually be surprised to learn that they cannot even find Electric Universe Theory on wikipedia, thanks to Josh Shroeder (aka ScienceApologist) and others. So, Josh has decided to make the decision for you. I suppose we should thank him. He's graced us with his presence actually recently, and it became extremely clear that he believes that nothing that he has ever read in his astrophysical textbooks can ever be untrue.

    For anyone that took the time to read the comment above, this theory is easily dismissed by the fact that electrons flowing TO the sun have NEVER been detected with the explanation from the believers of the electric model being "we're not looking hard enough"

    Actually, measuring electron drift is not as simple as you say here. It is far simpler on larger scales though. In fact, we would expect to see pretty much what we do see on larger scales: that the solar wind continues to accelerate as it passes the planets. The mainstream lacks a meaningful explanation for why this might be occurring.

    It's also worth noting that the Ulysses probe has in fact observed a hot mph flow of electrons and protons at the Sun's poles. The mainstream prefers to believe though that it doesn't actually do anything.
    --
    "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
  53. Re:Wow. That's some high energy Gamma Rays by pln2bz · · Score: 1

    It's like a car wreck. You just can't look away.

    There have been several important points in time within the history of science where the mainstream went wrong. I won't go into all of them here, but there is one in particular that people on Slashdot tend to be just completely clueless on: the interpretation of ancient documents through the context of uniformitarianism produces absolute nonsense. We have a wealth of materials to work with that range from astronomical recordings to mythological stories and even historical accounts, and yet, when documents are translated under the assumption that the Earth has always existed under the same exact conditions, numerous specific problems arise with regards to the contents of these documents. Not only that -- and this is extremely important for you to understand -- but the problems correlate amongst nearly all of the cultures of the world. This has led to the widespread belief that ancient people were idiots who spent a lot of time writing gibberish down for future generations to ridicule them about. Aside from validating stellar explosions and cometary encounters, it has become commonly accepted amongst the whole world, in fact, that there is nothing of any useful astronomical meaning within the writings of people of the past.

    What you and many others do not realize though is that it is not that there is no information there. The problem with interpreting those documents is the assumption of uniformitarianism. Once you remove that doctrine from the mind of the interpreters, and allow them to translate the texts as they were written and meant to be read, the message correlates between nearly all of the ancient writers. Dwardu Cardona's "God Star" is the first truly successful attempt at pulling this off, and seeing that it was only published in 2006, you and others can be forgiven for not having heard of it yet. But, what is unmistakable, and beyond any shadow of a doubt at this point in time based upon what he has discovered, is that the universe operates according to a plasma cosmology. Now, I don't for an instant believe that you will believe me, or that you will even ever wonder enough about what is in that book to actually purchase it because I understand the situation better than you understand. I've spent massive amounts of time learning the Slashdot crowd. I'm quite familiar with the way that people here think, and what they consider to be valid and invalid evidence. I also realize that you cannot pick and choose your evidence for how the universe works, or what form it should take. And, it is only by ignoring everything that has been written down by people who witnessed events which directly contradict uniformitarianism and the mainstream astrophysical theories that mainstream astrophysicists and their advocates can claim that their theories are accurate. It is only by ridiculing evidence which does not agree with their own theories that they can continue to convince people to not read about that evidence. Make no mistake about it: there is more than enough evidence within "God Star" alone to indicate to most people that the Big Bang never happened, and that we exist within a static universe. Halton Arp was right. Wallace Thornhill's accurate Deep Impact prediction was no accident. Hannes Alfven's prophetic warning to abandon the concept of frozen-in-place magnetic fields in his Nobel Physics acceptance speech was correct. Velikovsky made mistakes with his timelines, but many of his points about planetary reshuffling and interactions were right on target. In particular, Velikovsky's assertion that Venus is still cooling off from its recent birth was money, 100% correct. To be honest, when you can just go back and look up the eyewitness accounts of the event in excruciating detail, there really is no more doubt anymore that it is true.

    It's an interesting situation that you guys have set up for yourselves. You can surely claim that ancient people must have all been crazy in the same ways, and

    --
    "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.