Time Measures

[Radagast]

you could get delta and epsilon radiation (both electrons?) as indirect results of energetic radioactive decay (secondary and tertiary ionisation products), but also from other processes too.

True. But the secondary electrons (which is the more usual term) don't come from any nucleus; they're just bumped out of their ordinary energy level by some kind of high-energy input. It's not a nuclear process, and the atom losing an electron isn't "decaying."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

True. But the secondary electrons (which is the more usual term) don't come from any nucleus; they're just bumped out of their ordinary energy level by some kind of high-energy input. It's not a nuclear process, and the atom losing an electron isn't "decaying."

I think the idea is that the radioactive decay is the high-energy input, i.e. the products of radioactive decay can knock electrons out of some source material.

 

[Radagast]

I think the idea is that the radioactive decay is the high-energy input, i.e. the products of radioactive decay can knock electrons out of some source material.

Yes, or hard X-rays.

But kicking out secondary electrons is not a nuclear process, the atom losing an electron isn't "decaying," and consequently this does not mean that Caesium-133 is radioactive or unstable.

I'm not sure why you're pursuing this ridiculous agenda, and I won't be communicating further on the topic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, or hard X-rays.

But kicking out secondary electrons is not a nuclear process, the atom losing an electron isn't "decaying," and consequently this does not mean that Caesium-133 is radioactive or unstable.

I agree.

I'm not sure why you're pursuing this ridiculous agenda, and I won't be communicating further on the topic.

I have no agenda - I was simply trying to suggest a way that Ygrene Imref's claim could be interpreted to make sense - and it's clearly a stretch.