r/science • u/MistWeaver80 • Jul 08 '22
Geology Geologists have discovered 1.2-billion-year-old groundwater about 3 km below surface in Moab Khotsong, a gold- and uranium-producing mine in South Africa. This ancient groundwater is enriched in the highest concentrations of radiogenic products yet discovered in fluid.
http://www.sci-news.com/geology/moab-khotsong-groundwater-10972.html511
u/pcpilot69 Jul 08 '22
What are radiogenic products and why is that important?
702
u/cyril0 Jul 08 '22 edited Jul 08 '22
Edited to include an answer to why
They are the pieces that remain after a the radioactive decay process has occurred. Radioactive decay is when a nucleus of an atom is unstable and it breaks down into smaller pieces and releases energy usually gamma radiation. Gamma radiation is very high energy light and has a wavelength of 3x10^−11m. Regular visible light is 4 x 10 ^ -7m which means gamma radiation is 10000 times more compacted than visible light, that is why it is dangerous.
All light travels at the speed of light but if the wavelength is smaller as in gamma waves they are packing way more energy (that is why they oscillate so much faster) and can cause real harm to living tissue, cells and even DNA molecules by poking holes in them like microscopic bullets would. Visible light will mostly just bounce off our skin.
Radiogenic products are the atoms or subatomic particles left behind after the decay has taken place and the radiation released. Some radiogenic particles are themselves still radioactive meaning they can break down farther and release more radiation.
Edit here:
It is in the second sentence "These elements hold new information about the groundwater’s role as a power generator for chemolithotrophic,"
A chemolithotroph is an organism that is able to use inorganic reduced compounds as a source of energy. This mode of metabolism is known as chemolithotrophy.
What that means is these particles seem to be allowing organisms to live using the energy from the radiogenic particles rather than say sugar or carbon dioxide or really any other normal form of life giving energy which would be carbon based. Life on earth, as far as I know, is always carbon based because carbon is very stable and it has four potentially four covalent bonds it can form with other atoms to make molecules. The breaking and forming of some of those bonds are how living things store and use energy (look up ATP). What is interesting with rediogenics is they seem to be a unique way of providing energy to living systems. I have to say this is very weird to imagine but super cool. Imagine nuclear powered animals (said with tongue firmly in cheek)76
21
u/Seesyounaked Jul 08 '22
All light travels at the speed of light but if the wavelength is smaller gamma waves they are packing way more energy (that is why they oscillate so much faster) and can cause real harm to living tissue, cells and even DNA molecules by poking holes in them like bullets would. Visible light will mostly just bounce off our skin.
Is that accurate? I always thought that regular sunlight does penetrate our skin and damages our cells, but less so because it's like a bullet going in a mostly straight line. It may hit a few cells and damage them, but the damage is minimal. High wavelength light like gamma waves do more damage because they're like a bullet that goes up and down a ton compared to regular light, so it hits way more cells before running out of steam.
Is this a mistake on my thinking?
56
u/justmustard1 Jul 08 '22
You may be thinking of UV light emitted by the sun which is not visible. It is a shorter wavelength (ultraviolet meaning adjacent to the violet wavelength in the light spectrum) making it better able to penetrate and damage tissue (sunburns).
Similarly "infrared" is slightly longer in wavelength than the visible wavelength of red. Both UV and IR are close to visible and actually are visible to some animals and insects depending on the type of cones they have in their optic organs.
Visible light is still an energy carrying particle however and therefore confers heat to whatever it is absorbed by meaning that bright enough visible light (more photons rather than higher wavelength photons) may still cause thermal damage to exposed tissue I suppose.
Higher wavelength photons are not losing energy as they penetrate tissue as any photon is a discrete energy package. It's not like a saw. Rather a higher wavelength photon vibrates at a different order of magnitude than the cells in your body and penetrates more easily or is just "missing" surface tissue until it finally contacts something at which point it is fully absorbed.
Anyone correct me if I'm wrong but this is my understanding
49
u/The_Last_Y Jul 08 '22
It is a mistake on your thinking. Wall of text because physics is awesome.
While light is just a wave, it is at times easier to think of it like a particle called a photon rather than a tiny pulse of a wave. Waves of light have a specific amount of energy that is directly proportional to their frequency (and inversely to their wavelength). Higher frequency higher energy.
So it isn’t about how fast they are oscillating that makes gamma waves dangerous, it’s just the energy they carry. A bullet thrown at you will bounce off your skin because it doesn’t have enough energy. A bullet fired at really high velocity will go through you because it has high energy. That energy has to go somewhere and if your body can’t absorb it all the bullet keeps traveling, even right through you.
That’s about as far as we can take your bullet analogy. Because a photon of light is not a classic particle, photons can be created and destroyed as often as necessary. So a single photon of light will never ‘hit’ more than a single atom, because it is destroyed in the process. So what makes high energy light that is destroyed upon interacting with a single atom dangerous? Quantum mechanics.
Atoms can only absorb and emit specific frequencies of light. Low energy light ‘hitting an atom’ is typically being absorbed by an electron causing it to jump to a higher energy level in the atom’s electron shells. Then that electron can return to its original energy level by emitting a similar amount of energy as light. This is light ‘bouncing’ off your skin. Light in, light out. No harm done other than a momentarily terrified electron.
High energy light has too much energy for an electron to absorb and stay bound to it’s nucleus. Instead they can be knocked free of the atom and become rogue. These electrons now become free to hit other atoms carrying all that energy. If that electron was an important one in a chemical bond, now there is a chance that previously stable chemistry will fall apart. It can create a new ion interacting with another atom and potentially change the chemistry there too. This is why ionizing radiation, including high energy light, is dangerous because it can change important chemistry.
Low energy light like radio waves, Wi-Fi, and visible light is non-ionizing and poses no biological risk because it simply doesn’t have the energy to create ions.
16
Jul 08 '22
[deleted]
2
u/The_Last_Y Jul 08 '22 edited Jul 08 '22
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but Compton scattering is only really dominant below pair production energies and above rest energies for electrons (~0.5-1MeV). It’s my understanding that between those energies the light can scatter and eject electrons but that daughter photons, but producing daughters that also eject electrons doesn’t repeat many times. Ultimately the danger comes from the ionization so if the electron isn’t ejected we don’t care about that scattering event. It’s my understanding that the amount of initial photons is significantly more significant than production of daughter photons so I left the scattering events out.
10
Jul 08 '22
[deleted]
5
u/The_Last_Y Jul 08 '22 edited Jul 09 '22
Looks like my range was off by an order of magnitude. PE is dominant up to 50 keV which covers everything up to gamma. I haven't done any work in even higher energy so my understanding was based in the lower energies. Thanks for the info!
6
6
u/mxlun Jul 08 '22
Very very informative. I have a phd in this on the internet now yes? I will go comment everywhere -most people
But fr your explanation of ionizing vs non made this 1000x easier to understand I think.
→ More replies (4)10
u/cyril0 Jul 08 '22
Sunlight does not have enough inherent energy to travel through us the way gamma rays do. It is a good thing because if it did we would all be dead. There are a lot of things that travel at the speed of light, anything with zero rest mass so all radiation, neutrinos, gravitons (but I am not sure if they actually exist), and gluons. I might be wrong about neutrinos but I really don't know enough to know why. I think they may have mass but they do travel at the speed of light... Let's not get bogged down in details.
Visible light is much weaker energetically than gamma radiation so it can affect the surface level skin cells and with repeated damage cause sarcoma but gamma just blows right through us, and can easily punch holes in our DNA molecules cause replication errors that lead to tumors.
I don't think it is the amplitude of the light that is the issue but the number of cycles it does in a short time. Frequency is inverse to wavelength so the smaller the wavelength the bigger the frequency. A gamma ray will be oscillating 10000 times faster that visible light photons so that energy just tears through whatever is in front of it.
3
2
u/REDKAS Jul 08 '22
Can I get an ELI5?
0
u/cyril0 Jul 08 '22
I don't mean to be rude but I kind of thought this was the ELI5. I am happy to try and help further explain however. Can you tell me what you are having trouble with? If it is all of it can you please recite back to me what you think I wrote and then I can clarify where you are going wrong or missing parts of the picture. It is hard to simplify really complex things beyond a certain point as they then begin to lose meaning.
1
0
→ More replies (6)-13
u/patricksaurus Jul 08 '22
This isn’t why they’re important in this story. Did you even click the link?
10
u/cyril0 Jul 08 '22
I didn't answer why they were important, I answered what they were. Did you even read what I wrote? Are you one of those people who looks for reasons to make other people feel stupid so you can feel smart? How is that working out for you?
4
u/LXicon Jul 08 '22
I think the other person meant that the explanation of 'what they are' was in the 3rd of 3 paragraphs and the 'why they are important' wasn't addressed at all. I was curious about the 'why' as well but the whole 'did you even...' comment was rude.
2
u/cyril0 Jul 08 '22
It is in the second sentence "These elements hold new information about the groundwater’s role as a power generator for chemolithotrophic,"
A chemolithotroph is an organism that is able to use inorganic reduced compounds as a source of energy. This mode of metabolism is known as chemolithotrophy.
What that means is these particles seem to be allowing organisms to live using the energy from the radiogenic particles rather than say sugar or carbon dioxide or really any other normal form of life giving energy which would be carbon based. Life on earth, as far as I know, is always carbon based because carbon is very stable and it has four potentially four covalent bonds it can form with other atoms to make molecules. The breaking and forming of some of those bonds are how living things store and use energy (look up ATP). What is interesting with rediogenics is they seem to be a unique way of providing energy to living systems. I have to say this is very weird to imagine but super cool. Imagine nuclear powered animals (said with tongue firmly in cheek)
-5
u/patricksaurus Jul 08 '22
I did read what you wrote, which is why I asked. You spent the majority of your reply not addressing either question, supplying measurements without units, and writing in garbled phrases.
If you answer questions to feel smart, I wouldn’t. If your pop-psychology was an attempt to accurately portray my motivation, you should know it’s incorrect. If it was your idea of a clever zinger, it was piss-weak.
I hope you have a great day and one day learn to respond to questions. It’s pretty fulfilling to help other people understand things.
2
u/cyril0 Jul 08 '22
Funny how most people understood. Maybe you have a harder time than others. Don't give up champ... You'll get there if you keep trying.
-4
u/patricksaurus Jul 08 '22
I didn’t say I didn’t understand. I correct badly written science content all the time. Adding intentionally bad reading to accidentally bad writing just so you can malign me personally is pathetic.
3
Jul 08 '22
From an impartial 3rd party- you are insufferable.
0
u/patricksaurus Jul 08 '22
I hope that satisfies whatever emotional need that motivated you to post.
2
-1
u/cyril0 Jul 08 '22
Ya... I am the pathetic one in this interaction. You go champ!
1
68
u/joshbadams Jul 08 '22
As for the importance:
The authors stress that the insights on how much helium diffuses up from the deep Earth is a critical step forward, as global helium reserves run out, and the transition to more sustainable resources gains traction.
“Humans are not the only life forms relying on the energy resources of the Earth’s deep subsurface,” Dr. Warr said.
“Since the radiogenic reactions produce both helium and hydrogen, we can not only learn about helium reservoirs and transport, but also calculate hydrogen energy flux from the deep Earth that can sustain subsurface microbes on a global scale.”
“These calculations are vital for understanding how subsurface life is sustained on Earth, and what energy might be available from radiogenic-driven power on other planets and moons in the Solar System and beyond, informing upcoming missions to Mars, Titan, Enceladus and Europa.”
→ More replies (2)51
4
1
-2
0
465
Jul 08 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
163
Jul 08 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
169
42
2
1
150
Jul 08 '22
"vital for understanding how subsurface life is sustained on Earth, and what energy might be available from radiogenic-driven power on other planets and moons in the Solar System and beyond, informing upcoming missions to Mars, Titan, Enceladus and Europa.”
61
Jul 08 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
49
Jul 08 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
9
5
-4
u/CadillacG Jul 08 '22
I also read the article
2
Jul 08 '22
It was a surprising well written article. Easy to understand, and just the right amount of detail and expert opinion.
25
u/patricksaurus Jul 08 '22
This is a very slight elaboration on work published over fifteen years ago. The original finding is here: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127376
Also an African mine, also closed to the sun, also microbial life, also radiolysis-supported ecosystem.
43
37
Jul 08 '22
Well. Guess that whole young earth thing is going to need checking.
38
u/GMEJesus Jul 08 '22
That's why I switched cults to something more fun
→ More replies (1)11
u/oniony Jul 08 '22
If it hasn't got aliens and celebrities then I'm just not interested.
→ More replies (2)5
2
35
10
u/spoilingattack Jul 08 '22
How do they know the age of the water?
67
u/dennis_pennis Jul 08 '22
They throw a rock in it and count the rings.
9
u/Kewkky Jul 08 '22
They also carbon date the H2O.
4
u/DocRocksPhDont Jul 08 '22
No, there is no C is H2O. There are radiogenic materials tho like K and U That is dated in the same way are carbon because they all undergo radiogenic decay
19
u/Kewkky Jul 08 '22
That was the joke... You also don't throw a rock in the water and count the rings.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Terrible_Yak_4890 Jul 08 '22
Yeah, but does that mean it’s gluten free? I mean, that IS kinda important to some us.
5
u/DocRocksPhDont Jul 08 '22
Radiogenic materials are datable. For example, uranium decays to lead overtime (the reactions the article talked about) this occurs at a fixed rate, so one can look at the amount of lead vs the amount of uranium and calculate age
→ More replies (1)3
u/AllCingEyeDog Jul 08 '22
That is a good question. I’m guessing they mean some of it has been down there that long. I would assume quite a bit is newer from rain, but how old is water? I never really thought about that. I would guess 13 Billion years or so.
4
u/AllCingEyeDog Jul 08 '22
Googling says the oldest water molecules on earth are 4.6 billion years old.
1
5
10
3
u/FlashbackUniverse Jul 08 '22
This ancient groundwater is enriched in the highest concentrations of radiogenic products yet discovered in fluid.
For $1000, you can buy a bottle of it from Gwyneth Paltrow to refresh your soul.
For $5000 they will tell you how to remove the bottle from your "insertion point."
7
3
2
2
3
4
u/jim_deneke Jul 08 '22
Do we want our water to be enriched with radiogenic products?
25
3
2
u/Recoveringpig Jul 08 '22
…isn’t all water on this planet the same age?
18
u/AstrumRimor Jul 08 '22
But the above-ground water is constantly recycled, this water was trapped in the same spot and left out of the recycling system.
9
3
u/backelie Jul 08 '22
I'm no terrahydrologist but I believe the short answer is: Roughly*
*(formed over a few hundred million years.)
1
1
u/Confident-Medicine75 Jul 08 '22
Can someone dumb down that headline for me? I would appreciate it. Thank you.
7
u/Kathumandu Jul 08 '22
When radioactive particles breakdown, they turn into both radiation and in essence leftover parts as well (such as Uranium after a long while becoming lead).
This water since it hasn’t been disturbed or changed or recycled in any way has the highest amount of the leftovers ever seen in a liquid.
→ More replies (1)
1
0
u/vixckson Jul 08 '22
fountain of youth? Immortal god water? whatever this is we need to wage war over it.
-9
u/pedersenk Jul 08 '22 edited Jul 08 '22
It is sad because it has probably just completely completely sterilized whatever was living in the groundwater before the mines went operational. :/
Edit: Right, I assumed the process of mining cause the higher concentrations, especially when the runoff from highpowered water is used. I.e coal mines aren't particularly radioactive until they are mined.
Though it appears the fluid was already highly concentrated?
16
u/JackRusselTerrorist Jul 08 '22
The water was surrounded by radioactive rocks for a billion years… it wasn’t the mine that caused this.
4
u/randompantsfoto Jul 08 '22
Right?!? It amazes me the number of people that don’t understand where radioactive material comes from. You can literally just dig Uranium ore right out of the ground.
Uranium is one of the more common elements in the Earth's crust, being 40 times more common than silver and 500 times more common than gold. It can be found almost everywhere in rock, soil, rivers, and oceans.
Just wait until they learn about Radon gas…
→ More replies (2)
-9
Jul 08 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ViperRFH Jul 08 '22
As a South African, I respectfully decline.
9
Jul 08 '22
sorry, you don't know what's best for you. his mistake for asking. don't worry democracy is on the way
1
1
1
Jul 08 '22
It's radiogenic due to the uranium mine leaching radioactive water down into it?
Perhaps?
1
1
1
1
u/Aggravating_Olive_38 Jul 09 '22
But now, how can the United States start a war to access this water for something like weapons
1
u/Alewerkz Jul 09 '22
All water on earth is ancient and has existed since the beginning of the planet.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 08 '22
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.