Lightning Can Trigger Nuclear Reactions, Creating Rare Atomic Isotopes (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit shares a report from Science Magazine: Rare forms of atoms, like carbon-13, carbon-14, and nitrogen-15, have long been used to figure out the ages of ancient artifacts and probe the nuances of prehistoric food chains. The source of these rare isotopes? Complicated cascades of subatomic reactions in the atmosphere triggered by high-energy cosmic rays from outer space. Now, a team of scientists is adding one more isotope initiator to its list: lightning. Strong bolts of lightning can unleash the same flurry of nuclear reactions as cosmic rays, the researchers report in Nature. But, they add, the isotopes created by these storms likely constitute a small portion of all such atoms -- so the new findings are unlikely to change the way other scientists use them for dating and geotracing.

Comments

Well of course, lightning produces 1.21 Jigawatts!

[mykepredko]

The Doc told me so.

If it's enough power to move through time, then there's enough power there to create new isotopes!

Interesting

[rmdingler]

It's interesting to note these scientists have just introduced the discovery of a natural phenomenon that creates rare atomic isotopes previously associated with cosmic rays entering earth's atmosphere, and are at once certain " the isotopes created by these storms likely constitute a small portion of all such atoms."

Re:Interesting

[cascadingstylesheet]

It's interesting to note these scientists have just introduced the discovery of a natural phenomenon that creates rare atomic isotopes previously associated with cosmic rays entering earth's atmosphere, and are at once certain " the isotopes created by these storms likely constitute a small portion of all such atoms."

Good point; how do they know these constitute a small proportion? Just because it has to be so, because reasons?

Re:Interesting

[guruevi]

Because lightning storms don't have enough power to do this consistently at high rates elsewhere it'd be very apparent after every lightning storm that a bunch of these particles got created.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the effect of cosmic rays on 14C production in the atmosphere has been directly measured, and while there is a measurable shortfall there, the production from lightning can't amount to very much or the amount being produced from cosmic rays would be far off the observed atmospheric concentration. There's also a good historical record of 14C concentration in the atmosphere thanks to tree rings, glacial ice cores, and corals going back thousands of years. Example. Other than the mess made by 14C production since ~1945 thanks to atmospheric nuclear bomb testing, those concentrations jive with what would be expected primarily from the cosmic ray production. If lightning contributes too, it would have to be a relatively small proportion or the equilibrium achieved between 14C production and decay would be at a much higher concentration.

It's also worth noting that the gamma-ray production from lightning, which is associated with the process producing 14C, is only observed for the most extreme lightning events, detected at rates of around 50 per day world-wide versus the millions of individual lightning strikes that presumably aren't strong enough.

Re:Interesting

[FatdogHaiku]

Well, we're talking about roughly 1.4 billion flashes per year, and they're not evenly distributed around the planet. As to the power of each flash, I don't know how you could get good readings and keep the sensors intact... only 10 to 20 percent of the bolts reach the ground so we need disposable balloons or something to get actual voltages. Getting amperes or wattage has to be an estimate. So, now we know that rare isotopes created... but is lightning also creating common isotopes? If so, how much and what kinds? There could be WAY more going on then these first clues indicate.
More on lightning here:
http://www.aharfield.co.uk/lightning-protection-services/about-lightning
and here:
https://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/where-world-does-lightning-strike-most.html
and here:
http://geology.com/articles/lightning-map.shtml

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand how science applies the principle of uniformitarianism. It's not an assumption. It's a testable hypothesis. Like if physics of the past worked the same as today, then we should see "X" in the evidence, otherwise we will see something different. Whether the experiment was conducted 5 minutes ago, 500 years ago, or 5 million years ago affects the practical aspects of doing the science, not the fundamental nature of how science is performed by making predictions and then going out and comparing the evidence to them.

For example, we don't assume 14C decayed in the past like it does today. We can count annual growth rings in trees, corals, and glacial ice going back thousands of years to see whether the carbon isotope results match. Likewise, for longer-term isotopic systems like uranium-lead we can make predictions about how nuclear processes worked, and see if the geochemical signatures in natural nuclear reactors such as Oklo, which was active almost 2 billion years ago. There are also many tests of whether nuclear processes worked the same in the past via such things as astronomy, where the distances involved are large enough that you are looking back far into time. If nuclear processes worked differently in fundamental way, for example, then you'd see differences in the way that light fades after a star goes supernova as you looked at events further and further away. Scientists have always been interested in the possibility that fundamental physical constants have changed in the deep past, and have looked for evidence, but it's kind of a boring exercise because usually the results show no detectable change to within measurement limits.

We don't simply assume this stuff works exactly the same and ignore ways to test it, especially when there is evidence for variation of rates of *some* processes today, and some fundamental things about the Earth have changed over the long term (e.g., little or no free oxygen in the atmosphere billions of years ago, or changes in the Moon's orbit that have affected the tides). Those differences yield different products. The more fundamental nuclear stuff, not so far.

The only people who think scientists blindly apply the principle of uniformitarianism are usually pseudoscientists with an axe to grind or people who don't understand how scientists actually use it. It's nothing more than an application of Occam's Razor until you've got evidence that significant change has actually happened.

No Comments?

[asylumx]

One of the few articles that are actually related to science. Not a clickbait headline... and there are no comments. I get that real science isn't "sexy" but it'd be nice to see a discussion about what this discovery could mean. What are the wild ideas for using lightning to create this isotope? What are the new possibilities? I imagine that we'll be able to generate them artificially, so what can be done with them? IANA Physicist but there used to be some here, and their comments were always welcomed and interesting.

Re:No Comments?

[thegarbz]

Not a clickbait headline... and there are no comments

Holidays season. People are with their families. The few people who don't seem to have any friends are posting both critiques and distrust of science in general on Slashdot, and a few odd jobs are posting political shit.

What about an experiment

[bobstreo]

With a bunch of Tritium and some lightning?

Re:Checkmate!

[gtall]

My money's on the nutcase who wants to use his self-made rocket to prove the earth is flat and Darwin's Survival of the Smartest, all in one shot.

Re:But can it create

[nospam007]

"It's really not that big of a deal, when you consider what happens in some parts of the world. Isis killed 300+ in a mosque in Egypt. These are fellow muslims. "

Fellow? Hardly. They were Sufis, apostates.

"They are subhuman animals."

You mean like Christians, who made war among themselves for hundreds of years because of some minor differences in interpretation of non-existent gods?

Re: There is more salty water than air.

[Oceanplexian]

You shouldn't spread FUD on a site where a non negligible portion of its users are nuclear engineers.

Heavy water is not a product of a nuclear reaction. It's produced by filtering ordinary, natural water and extracting the D2O. The water is used to slow down neutrons in a reactor. In a PWR (almost all nukes) it's kept at a high pressure and does not boil out of the system. At some point the heavy water is replaced. At this time it will only have a slightly elevated level of tritium (Half life, only 12 years).

The "steam" that comes out of a nuclear reactor is water vapor and has nothing to do with heavy water. It's part of a secondary coolant loop that has no interaction with any radioactive materials. Nukes don't pollute the atmosphere in any way. It is a 100% closed system.

So ...

[PPH]

... nature's version of a fusor.

Re: There is more salty water than air.

[cellocgw]

Heavy water is made by painstakingly separating it from ordinary water. Diluted it's completely natural.

Even concentrated D2O is nearly harmless. You would need to drink a gallon or more before it had significant toxicity.

Ok, that makes no sense: according to homeopathy, the more you dilute it, the more powerful it is. So we should keep diluting heavy water until it spontaneously explodes... or something.

Re: There is more salty water than air.

[93 Escort Wagon]

You don’t need to be a nuclear engineer to know all that - you only need to be somewhat technically literate.

I will quibble with part of your comment though. Nuclear reactors do not pollute the atmosphere during routine operation. There are circumstances where reactors have released (usually small amounts of) radioactive material into the air - these things are well-studied. Also, the potentially bigger environmental concern raised by some has been the affect of increased water temperature on fish and other aquatic life due to the release of cooling water into rivers and such. Regulation, combined with monitoring, helps ameliorate this.