Mixing
In nuclear bomb explosions, witness describe their hands becoming transparent. How does that happen?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
2
Witnesses of nuclear explosions have described their hands becoming transparent, and that they could see the bones. For example, see here. How does that happen?
optics visible-light nuclear-physics
edited yesterday
Chair
3,40541632
asked yesterday
radon
113113
New contributor
radon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
2
Witnesses of nuclear explosions have described their hands becoming transparent, and that they could see the bones. For example, see here. How does that happen?
optics visible-light nuclear-physics
edited yesterday
Chair
3,40541632
asked yesterday
radon
113113
New contributor
radon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Supported on this video . I disagree with the premise of the question.
– user190081
yesterday
1
you should give a link to the video that claims this
– anna v
yesterday
5
Everything has the potential to be "transparent" to certain radiation. Your hands are already transparent to neutrinos, X-rays (partially), gamma radiation... it turns out they're transparent to sufficiently bright light also. Test it out with a torch.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
22 hours ago
3
Experiment for you: In a dark room, cover a flash light with your fingers. Your mobile phone's flash light should be sufficient (if any).
– phresnel
21 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
2
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
2
2
Witnesses of nuclear explosions have described their hands becoming transparent, and that they could see the bones. For example, see here. How does that happen?
optics visible-light nuclear-physics
edited yesterday
Chair
3,40541632
asked yesterday
radon
113113
New contributor
radon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Witnesses of nuclear explosions have described their hands becoming transparent, and that they could see the bones. For example, see here. How does that happen?
optics visible-light nuclear-physics
optics visible-light nuclear-physics
edited yesterday
Chair
3,40541632
asked yesterday
radon
113113
New contributor
radon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
Chair
3,40541632
asked yesterday
radon
113113
New contributor
radon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
Chair
3,40541632
edited yesterday
Chair
3,40541632
edited yesterday
Chair
3,40541632
3,40541632
asked yesterday
radon
113113
New contributor
radon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
radon
113113
asked yesterday
radon
113113
113113
New contributor
radon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
radon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
radon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Supported on this video . I disagree with the premise of the question.
– user190081
yesterday
1
you should give a link to the video that claims this
– anna v
yesterday
5
Everything has the potential to be "transparent" to certain radiation. Your hands are already transparent to neutrinos, X-rays (partially), gamma radiation... it turns out they're transparent to sufficiently bright light also. Test it out with a torch.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
22 hours ago
3
Experiment for you: In a dark room, cover a flash light with your fingers. Your mobile phone's flash light should be sufficient (if any).
– phresnel
21 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Supported on this video . I disagree with the premise of the question.
– user190081
yesterday
1
you should give a link to the video that claims this
– anna v
yesterday
5
Everything has the potential to be "transparent" to certain radiation. Your hands are already transparent to neutrinos, X-rays (partially), gamma radiation... it turns out they're transparent to sufficiently bright light also. Test it out with a torch.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
22 hours ago
3
Experiment for you: In a dark room, cover a flash light with your fingers. Your mobile phone's flash light should be sufficient (if any).
– phresnel
21 hours ago
Supported on this video . I disagree with the premise of the question.
– user190081
yesterday
Supported on this video . I disagree with the premise of the question.
– user190081
yesterday
1
1
you should give a link to the video that claims this
– anna v
yesterday
you should give a link to the video that claims this
– anna v
yesterday
5
5
Everything has the potential to be "transparent" to certain radiation. Your hands are already transparent to neutrinos, X-rays (partially), gamma radiation... it turns out they're transparent to sufficiently bright light also. Test it out with a torch.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
22 hours ago
Everything has the potential to be "transparent" to certain radiation. Your hands are already transparent to neutrinos, X-rays (partially), gamma radiation... it turns out they're transparent to sufficiently bright light also. Test it out with a torch.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
22 hours ago
3
3
Experiment for you: In a dark room, cover a flash light with your fingers. Your mobile phone's flash light should be sufficient (if any).
– phresnel
21 hours ago
Experiment for you: In a dark room, cover a flash light with your fingers. Your mobile phone's flash light should be sufficient (if any).
– phresnel
21 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
62
down vote
Have you never seen the bones of your hand when covering a flash light at night? Imo it was just a very bright light over a large area and trying to shield the eyes the bones were seen.
answered yesterday
anna v
151k7144431
That was my best guess as well. Will see if the question produces an idea that is better then that. It would be interesting to reproduce (not just with a flashlight, but with a light source equivalent to what those people experienced. )
– radon
yesterday
2
@annav You might be surprised. It's hard to compare a deposited energy density to an energy flux, but if I'm reading the Synlight press material correctly, they can achieve intensities of the order of 10 MW/m$^2$ for extended periods of time, so they'd be able to deposit that energy density (though maybe only on a small target?) in a small fraction of a second. You certainly don't want to put human test subjects there, but it looks doable to me.
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
21
@radon why do you need "a better idea"? A bright enough light shines right through one's flesh and skin. Nuclear explosions are bright. Mystery solved.
– IMil
yesterday
5
Or just use brighter and brighter lights until you can extrapolate what would happen in extreme light. You don't really need to match nuclear explosion level of brightness on the initial testing.
– Nelson
yesterday
3
@jkej "Clear image" may be an exaggeration or a false memory. High levels of stress tend to do this to you. Like, for instance, when nuclear bombs go off in your vicinity.
– IMil
9 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
11
down vote
Skin and flesh are of different ability to stop light. Extremely bright light can be detected through a thin layer of skin.
Also, a nuclear weapon releases electromagnetic energy all up and down the spectrum. Different wavelengths have different ability to penetrate. Here is a guy showing interesting effects with infrared.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaKxCMPLhTE
His example is a lot of fun because the wavelengths he is using penetrate but don't do any harm. The radiation released by a nuclear weapon includes wavelengths that are very harmful. But they can penetrate and scatter. When they scatter there is some tendency for them to scatter to lower wavelengths which are then visible.
answered yesterday
puppetsock
1,23027
7
In the video you cite, the person is using an IR camera, he mentions "Quite bright but you have to use an IR camera; you will not see anything with bare eyes. "
– radon
yesterday
10
@radon but he didn't use a nuclear bomb as a light source !
– Martin Beckett
yesterday
@MartinBeckett You aren't going to see IR, even if a nuclear bomb is releasing it.
– forest
8 hours ago
Scattering doesn't change wavelength of incident light, only direction. A tiny fraction of the energy of a nuclear bomb is going into visible light, though it is likely still enough to appear as a very bright strobe and for this existing visible light to pass in a detectable amount through the flesh of a hand.
– madscientist159
2 hours ago
@forest Depends on the kind of infrared. There isn't a hard cut-off, the eye just gets gradually less sensitive. If your (near) IR source is bright enough you definitely can see it, it just might not be eye safe (but nobody has claimed that nuclear bombs are eye safe ...).
– etarion
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Light can actually used for diagnostics, instead of X-rays or nuclear radiation: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/using-lasers-instead-x-rays
answered 18 hours ago
StessenJ
916123
4
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Emilio Pisanty
17 hours ago
But it's an interesting comment. :)
– stafusa
13 hours ago
add a comment |Â
protected by David Z♦ 23 hours ago
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
62
down vote
Have you never seen the bones of your hand when covering a flash light at night? Imo it was just a very bright light over a large area and trying to shield the eyes the bones were seen.
answered yesterday
anna v
151k7144431
That was my best guess as well. Will see if the question produces an idea that is better then that. It would be interesting to reproduce (not just with a flashlight, but with a light source equivalent to what those people experienced. )
– radon
yesterday
2
@annav You might be surprised. It's hard to compare a deposited energy density to an energy flux, but if I'm reading the Synlight press material correctly, they can achieve intensities of the order of 10 MW/m$^2$ for extended periods of time, so they'd be able to deposit that energy density (though maybe only on a small target?) in a small fraction of a second. You certainly don't want to put human test subjects there, but it looks doable to me.
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
21
@radon why do you need "a better idea"? A bright enough light shines right through one's flesh and skin. Nuclear explosions are bright. Mystery solved.
– IMil
yesterday
5
Or just use brighter and brighter lights until you can extrapolate what would happen in extreme light. You don't really need to match nuclear explosion level of brightness on the initial testing.
– Nelson
yesterday
3
@jkej "Clear image" may be an exaggeration or a false memory. High levels of stress tend to do this to you. Like, for instance, when nuclear bombs go off in your vicinity.
– IMil
9 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
62
down vote
Have you never seen the bones of your hand when covering a flash light at night? Imo it was just a very bright light over a large area and trying to shield the eyes the bones were seen.
answered yesterday
anna v
151k7144431
That was my best guess as well. Will see if the question produces an idea that is better then that. It would be interesting to reproduce (not just with a flashlight, but with a light source equivalent to what those people experienced. )
– radon
yesterday
2
@annav You might be surprised. It's hard to compare a deposited energy density to an energy flux, but if I'm reading the Synlight press material correctly, they can achieve intensities of the order of 10 MW/m$^2$ for extended periods of time, so they'd be able to deposit that energy density (though maybe only on a small target?) in a small fraction of a second. You certainly don't want to put human test subjects there, but it looks doable to me.
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
21
@radon why do you need "a better idea"? A bright enough light shines right through one's flesh and skin. Nuclear explosions are bright. Mystery solved.
– IMil
yesterday
5
Or just use brighter and brighter lights until you can extrapolate what would happen in extreme light. You don't really need to match nuclear explosion level of brightness on the initial testing.
– Nelson
yesterday
3
@jkej "Clear image" may be an exaggeration or a false memory. High levels of stress tend to do this to you. Like, for instance, when nuclear bombs go off in your vicinity.
– IMil
9 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
62
down vote
up vote
62
down vote
Have you never seen the bones of your hand when covering a flash light at night? Imo it was just a very bright light over a large area and trying to shield the eyes the bones were seen.
answered yesterday
anna v
151k7144431
Have you never seen the bones of your hand when covering a flash light at night? Imo it was just a very bright light over a large area and trying to shield the eyes the bones were seen.
answered yesterday
anna v
151k7144431
answered yesterday
anna v
151k7144431
answered yesterday
anna v
151k7144431
answered yesterday
anna v
151k7144431
151k7144431
That was my best guess as well. Will see if the question produces an idea that is better then that. It would be interesting to reproduce (not just with a flashlight, but with a light source equivalent to what those people experienced. )
– radon
yesterday
2
@annav You might be surprised. It's hard to compare a deposited energy density to an energy flux, but if I'm reading the Synlight press material correctly, they can achieve intensities of the order of 10 MW/m$^2$ for extended periods of time, so they'd be able to deposit that energy density (though maybe only on a small target?) in a small fraction of a second. You certainly don't want to put human test subjects there, but it looks doable to me.
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
21
@radon why do you need "a better idea"? A bright enough light shines right through one's flesh and skin. Nuclear explosions are bright. Mystery solved.
– IMil
yesterday
5
Or just use brighter and brighter lights until you can extrapolate what would happen in extreme light. You don't really need to match nuclear explosion level of brightness on the initial testing.
– Nelson
yesterday
3
@jkej "Clear image" may be an exaggeration or a false memory. High levels of stress tend to do this to you. Like, for instance, when nuclear bombs go off in your vicinity.
– IMil
9 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
That was my best guess as well. Will see if the question produces an idea that is better then that. It would be interesting to reproduce (not just with a flashlight, but with a light source equivalent to what those people experienced. )
– radon
yesterday
2
@annav You might be surprised. It's hard to compare a deposited energy density to an energy flux, but if I'm reading the Synlight press material correctly, they can achieve intensities of the order of 10 MW/m$^2$ for extended periods of time, so they'd be able to deposit that energy density (though maybe only on a small target?) in a small fraction of a second. You certainly don't want to put human test subjects there, but it looks doable to me.
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
21
@radon why do you need "a better idea"? A bright enough light shines right through one's flesh and skin. Nuclear explosions are bright. Mystery solved.
– IMil
yesterday
5
Or just use brighter and brighter lights until you can extrapolate what would happen in extreme light. You don't really need to match nuclear explosion level of brightness on the initial testing.
– Nelson
yesterday
3
@jkej "Clear image" may be an exaggeration or a false memory. High levels of stress tend to do this to you. Like, for instance, when nuclear bombs go off in your vicinity.
– IMil
9 hours ago
That was my best guess as well. Will see if the question produces an idea that is better then that. It would be interesting to reproduce (not just with a flashlight, but with a light source equivalent to what those people experienced. )
– radon
yesterday
That was my best guess as well. Will see if the question produces an idea that is better then that. It would be interesting to reproduce (not just with a flashlight, but with a light source equivalent to what those people experienced. )
– radon
yesterday
2
2
@annav You might be surprised. It's hard to compare a deposited energy density to an energy flux, but if I'm reading the Synlight press material correctly, they can achieve intensities of the order of 10 MW/m$^2$ for extended periods of time, so they'd be able to deposit that energy density (though maybe only on a small target?) in a small fraction of a second. You certainly don't want to put human test subjects there, but it looks doable to me.
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
@annav You might be surprised. It's hard to compare a deposited energy density to an energy flux, but if I'm reading the Synlight press material correctly, they can achieve intensities of the order of 10 MW/m$^2$ for extended periods of time, so they'd be able to deposit that energy density (though maybe only on a small target?) in a small fraction of a second. You certainly don't want to put human test subjects there, but it looks doable to me.
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
21
21
@radon why do you need "a better idea"? A bright enough light shines right through one's flesh and skin. Nuclear explosions are bright. Mystery solved.
– IMil
yesterday
@radon why do you need "a better idea"? A bright enough light shines right through one's flesh and skin. Nuclear explosions are bright. Mystery solved.
– IMil
yesterday
5
5
Or just use brighter and brighter lights until you can extrapolate what would happen in extreme light. You don't really need to match nuclear explosion level of brightness on the initial testing.
– Nelson
yesterday
Or just use brighter and brighter lights until you can extrapolate what would happen in extreme light. You don't really need to match nuclear explosion level of brightness on the initial testing.
– Nelson
yesterday
3
3
@jkej "Clear image" may be an exaggeration or a false memory. High levels of stress tend to do this to you. Like, for instance, when nuclear bombs go off in your vicinity.
– IMil
9 hours ago
@jkej "Clear image" may be an exaggeration or a false memory. High levels of stress tend to do this to you. Like, for instance, when nuclear bombs go off in your vicinity.
– IMil
9 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
11
down vote
Skin and flesh are of different ability to stop light. Extremely bright light can be detected through a thin layer of skin.
Also, a nuclear weapon releases electromagnetic energy all up and down the spectrum. Different wavelengths have different ability to penetrate. Here is a guy showing interesting effects with infrared.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaKxCMPLhTE
His example is a lot of fun because the wavelengths he is using penetrate but don't do any harm. The radiation released by a nuclear weapon includes wavelengths that are very harmful. But they can penetrate and scatter. When they scatter there is some tendency for them to scatter to lower wavelengths which are then visible.
answered yesterday
puppetsock
1,23027
7
In the video you cite, the person is using an IR camera, he mentions "Quite bright but you have to use an IR camera; you will not see anything with bare eyes. "
– radon
yesterday
10
@radon but he didn't use a nuclear bomb as a light source !
– Martin Beckett
yesterday
@MartinBeckett You aren't going to see IR, even if a nuclear bomb is releasing it.
– forest
8 hours ago
Scattering doesn't change wavelength of incident light, only direction. A tiny fraction of the energy of a nuclear bomb is going into visible light, though it is likely still enough to appear as a very bright strobe and for this existing visible light to pass in a detectable amount through the flesh of a hand.
– madscientist159
2 hours ago
@forest Depends on the kind of infrared. There isn't a hard cut-off, the eye just gets gradually less sensitive. If your (near) IR source is bright enough you definitely can see it, it just might not be eye safe (but nobody has claimed that nuclear bombs are eye safe ...).
– etarion
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
Skin and flesh are of different ability to stop light. Extremely bright light can be detected through a thin layer of skin.
Also, a nuclear weapon releases electromagnetic energy all up and down the spectrum. Different wavelengths have different ability to penetrate. Here is a guy showing interesting effects with infrared.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaKxCMPLhTE
His example is a lot of fun because the wavelengths he is using penetrate but don't do any harm. The radiation released by a nuclear weapon includes wavelengths that are very harmful. But they can penetrate and scatter. When they scatter there is some tendency for them to scatter to lower wavelengths which are then visible.
answered yesterday
puppetsock
1,23027
7
In the video you cite, the person is using an IR camera, he mentions "Quite bright but you have to use an IR camera; you will not see anything with bare eyes. "
– radon
yesterday
10
@radon but he didn't use a nuclear bomb as a light source !
– Martin Beckett
yesterday
@MartinBeckett You aren't going to see IR, even if a nuclear bomb is releasing it.
– forest
8 hours ago
Scattering doesn't change wavelength of incident light, only direction. A tiny fraction of the energy of a nuclear bomb is going into visible light, though it is likely still enough to appear as a very bright strobe and for this existing visible light to pass in a detectable amount through the flesh of a hand.
– madscientist159
2 hours ago
@forest Depends on the kind of infrared. There isn't a hard cut-off, the eye just gets gradually less sensitive. If your (near) IR source is bright enough you definitely can see it, it just might not be eye safe (but nobody has claimed that nuclear bombs are eye safe ...).
– etarion
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
down vote
Skin and flesh are of different ability to stop light. Extremely bright light can be detected through a thin layer of skin.
Also, a nuclear weapon releases electromagnetic energy all up and down the spectrum. Different wavelengths have different ability to penetrate. Here is a guy showing interesting effects with infrared.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaKxCMPLhTE
His example is a lot of fun because the wavelengths he is using penetrate but don't do any harm. The radiation released by a nuclear weapon includes wavelengths that are very harmful. But they can penetrate and scatter. When they scatter there is some tendency for them to scatter to lower wavelengths which are then visible.
answered yesterday
puppetsock
1,23027
Skin and flesh are of different ability to stop light. Extremely bright light can be detected through a thin layer of skin.
Also, a nuclear weapon releases electromagnetic energy all up and down the spectrum. Different wavelengths have different ability to penetrate. Here is a guy showing interesting effects with infrared.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaKxCMPLhTE
His example is a lot of fun because the wavelengths he is using penetrate but don't do any harm. The radiation released by a nuclear weapon includes wavelengths that are very harmful. But they can penetrate and scatter. When they scatter there is some tendency for them to scatter to lower wavelengths which are then visible.
answered yesterday
puppetsock
1,23027
answered yesterday
puppetsock
1,23027
answered yesterday
puppetsock
1,23027
answered yesterday
puppetsock
1,23027
1,23027
7
In the video you cite, the person is using an IR camera, he mentions "Quite bright but you have to use an IR camera; you will not see anything with bare eyes. "
– radon
yesterday
10
@radon but he didn't use a nuclear bomb as a light source !
– Martin Beckett
yesterday
@MartinBeckett You aren't going to see IR, even if a nuclear bomb is releasing it.
– forest
8 hours ago
Scattering doesn't change wavelength of incident light, only direction. A tiny fraction of the energy of a nuclear bomb is going into visible light, though it is likely still enough to appear as a very bright strobe and for this existing visible light to pass in a detectable amount through the flesh of a hand.
– madscientist159
2 hours ago
@forest Depends on the kind of infrared. There isn't a hard cut-off, the eye just gets gradually less sensitive. If your (near) IR source is bright enough you definitely can see it, it just might not be eye safe (but nobody has claimed that nuclear bombs are eye safe ...).
– etarion
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
7
In the video you cite, the person is using an IR camera, he mentions "Quite bright but you have to use an IR camera; you will not see anything with bare eyes. "
– radon
yesterday
10
@radon but he didn't use a nuclear bomb as a light source !
– Martin Beckett
yesterday
@MartinBeckett You aren't going to see IR, even if a nuclear bomb is releasing it.
– forest
8 hours ago
Scattering doesn't change wavelength of incident light, only direction. A tiny fraction of the energy of a nuclear bomb is going into visible light, though it is likely still enough to appear as a very bright strobe and for this existing visible light to pass in a detectable amount through the flesh of a hand.
– madscientist159
2 hours ago
@forest Depends on the kind of infrared. There isn't a hard cut-off, the eye just gets gradually less sensitive. If your (near) IR source is bright enough you definitely can see it, it just might not be eye safe (but nobody has claimed that nuclear bombs are eye safe ...).
– etarion
23 mins ago
7
7
In the video you cite, the person is using an IR camera, he mentions "Quite bright but you have to use an IR camera; you will not see anything with bare eyes. "
– radon
yesterday
In the video you cite, the person is using an IR camera, he mentions "Quite bright but you have to use an IR camera; you will not see anything with bare eyes. "
– radon
yesterday
10
10
@radon but he didn't use a nuclear bomb as a light source !
– Martin Beckett
yesterday
@radon but he didn't use a nuclear bomb as a light source !
– Martin Beckett
yesterday
@MartinBeckett You aren't going to see IR, even if a nuclear bomb is releasing it.
– forest
8 hours ago
@MartinBeckett You aren't going to see IR, even if a nuclear bomb is releasing it.
– forest
8 hours ago
Scattering doesn't change wavelength of incident light, only direction. A tiny fraction of the energy of a nuclear bomb is going into visible light, though it is likely still enough to appear as a very bright strobe and for this existing visible light to pass in a detectable amount through the flesh of a hand.
– madscientist159
2 hours ago
Scattering doesn't change wavelength of incident light, only direction. A tiny fraction of the energy of a nuclear bomb is going into visible light, though it is likely still enough to appear as a very bright strobe and for this existing visible light to pass in a detectable amount through the flesh of a hand.
– madscientist159
2 hours ago
@forest Depends on the kind of infrared. There isn't a hard cut-off, the eye just gets gradually less sensitive. If your (near) IR source is bright enough you definitely can see it, it just might not be eye safe (but nobody has claimed that nuclear bombs are eye safe ...).
– etarion
23 mins ago
@forest Depends on the kind of infrared. There isn't a hard cut-off, the eye just gets gradually less sensitive. If your (near) IR source is bright enough you definitely can see it, it just might not be eye safe (but nobody has claimed that nuclear bombs are eye safe ...).
– etarion
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Light can actually used for diagnostics, instead of X-rays or nuclear radiation: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/using-lasers-instead-x-rays
answered 18 hours ago
StessenJ
916123
4
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Emilio Pisanty
17 hours ago
But it's an interesting comment. :)
– stafusa
13 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Light can actually used for diagnostics, instead of X-rays or nuclear radiation: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/using-lasers-instead-x-rays
answered 18 hours ago
StessenJ
916123
4
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Emilio Pisanty
17 hours ago
But it's an interesting comment. :)
– stafusa
13 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Light can actually used for diagnostics, instead of X-rays or nuclear radiation: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/using-lasers-instead-x-rays
answered 18 hours ago
StessenJ
916123
Light can actually used for diagnostics, instead of X-rays or nuclear radiation: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/using-lasers-instead-x-rays
answered 18 hours ago
StessenJ
916123
answered 18 hours ago
StessenJ
916123
answered 18 hours ago
StessenJ
916123
answered 18 hours ago
StessenJ
916123
916123
4
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Emilio Pisanty
17 hours ago
But it's an interesting comment. :)
– stafusa
13 hours ago
add a comment |Â
4
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Emilio Pisanty
17 hours ago
But it's an interesting comment. :)
– stafusa
13 hours ago
4
4
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Emilio Pisanty
17 hours ago
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Emilio Pisanty
17 hours ago
But it's an interesting comment. :)
– stafusa
13 hours ago
But it's an interesting comment. :)
– stafusa
13 hours ago
add a comment |Â
protected by David Z♦ 23 hours ago
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
Supported on this video . I disagree with the premise of the question.
– user190081
yesterday
1
you should give a link to the video that claims this
– anna v
yesterday
5
Everything has the potential to be "transparent" to certain radiation. Your hands are already transparent to neutrinos, X-rays (partially), gamma radiation... it turns out they're transparent to sufficiently bright light also. Test it out with a torch.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
22 hours ago
3
Experiment for you: In a dark room, cover a flash light with your fingers. Your mobile phone's flash light should be sufficient (if any).
– phresnel
21 hours ago