Haha good one. "Punny answer."

I am curious where this *drop and run* source comes from. Typically, they're sealed in a shielded box, where you can open a small windows that the gamma say can escape and are used for field radiography when inspecting bridge/pipeline solder. Definitely not a *drop and run* thing

If your are very lucky, you can find one by the side of the road in Australia.

I'm guessing it's short for "If you don't know what this is and you find it outside of any shielded box, shit has gone very wrong and you should not be near this, let alone touch it". The probably best way to get people to stop touching it is to suggest that it poses an acute threat, hence the urgency in the phrasing "drop and run". So if you're operating a device wherein it's properly contained, you don't see the label. If you're removing it while protected appropriately, you already know the label doesn't apply to you. If you know how to handle it, you don't need instructions.

I am guessing the idea is to induce terror in the holder such that, if they did not intend to hold a vial of Co 60, they would not mess with it further. It conveys the appropriate level of danger, if not an appropriate set of handling instructions.

> find the right answer by posting the wrong answer.” Cunningham's Law FTW

Time for a rewatch of Chernobyl.

They have "ray of frost". They can understand "radiation". Not necessarily what is radiating but the word itself is old. radiation(n.) mid-15c., radiacion, "act or process of emitting light," from Latin radiationem (nominative radiatio) "a shining, radiation," noun of action from past-participle stem of radiare "to beam, shine, gleam; make beaming," from radius "beam of light; spoke of a wheel" (see radius).

Lots of "stops" everywhere and and skulls in red triangles, yeah, that should be somewhat clear toa lot of people. But not everyone

Ah, I remember this story: > on September 24, Ivo, Devair's brother, successfully scraped some additional dust out of the source and took it to his house a short distance away. There he spread some of it on the concrete floor. His six-year-old daughter, Leide das Neves Ferreira, later ate an egg while sitting on the floor. She was also fascinated by the blue glow of the powder, applying it to her body and showing it off to her mother. What a horrible way to die

[Does temperature affect nuclear decay?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/400129/does-temperature-affect-nuclear-decay) Technically, maybe, but the effect is negligible.

[My favorite podcast did an episode about that!](https://youtu.be/34rdxDgpaaA) Highly recommend if you like leftism, and want to listen to an engineer talk at length about what this blue glowing powder is, the series of bad decisions that led to some scrap collectors finding it, and the even longer series of even worse decisions people made regarding what to do with this blue glowing powder You can skip the Goddamn News if you want, discussion of the spicy rocks starts at 20:28

Make it fancy. "Malluminance" or something

This glyph clearly portrays the object with the ️ symbol bringing someone back from the dead! We should consume the blue powder inside this metal case, as it's clearly a kind of medicine

It's not so much that it's visible in air, it's just that your eyes have water in them

I love Well There's Your Problem, highly recommend that episode as well

ChatGPT is a text generator. Any "information" it delivers is only correct by chance, if at all. Without the knowledge to check the answers yourself, you can't possibly tell whether you're falling for random error. More in-depth, ChatGPT has learned how likely certain word patterns are in combination. Something like "1+1=" will most often be followed by "2". ChatGPT has no concept of truth or mathematical relationship, so it doesn't "understand" why this combination occurs like that, it just imitates it. You can actually see the slight randomisation in the inconsistent way 5.18 is rounded to 5.2 instead. If this was correct – I'm not qualified to comment on that – and written by a human, you'd expect them to be more consequent with the precision. It's likely that ChatGPT learned these number-words from different sources using different precision and randomly picks which one to go with for each new line. So what happens when it decides a word combination seems plausible, but it doesn't actually make sense? Well, for example, [lawyers get slapped with a fine for ChatGPT citing case law that doesn't exist](https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-chatgpt-fake-case-lawyers-d6ae9fa79d0542db9e1455397aef381c). They _sounded_ valid, because that's what ChatGPT is made for: generating plausible word combinations. It doesn't know what a legal case is or how it imposes critical restrictions on what's actually valid in this context. There's an open access paper on the proclivity of LLMs to bullshit, [available for download from Springer](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5). The short version is that it's entirely indifferent to truth. It doesn't and can't care or even know whether the figures it spits out are correct. Use it to generate texts, if you must, but don't use it to generate facts. It's not looking them up, it's not researching, it's not doing the math – it's making them up to sound right.

https://inis.iaea.org/records/5hxba-wnv29 “Drop & Run” by IAEA.

The latin source word is much older than 1500s, but the question is whether they understand what it's about. Both the 15th century "radiacion" and the latin "radiationem" are about emitting light and are synonymous with "to shine" or "to glow" (though without the heat connotation). None of that conveys the sense of danger and fear of death that the modern word "radiation" means. Kinda like how the word "plane" was in use in English in the 1600s and derives from the much older Latin word "planum", but if I'd tell some from 1600s England or from ancient Rome that I took a plane/planum to another country, they'd be utterly confused about what that means. The word is the same (or at least very similar), but the concept is unknown. So you need to find a concept that's similar to what you want to convey, and then use the fitting word. For example, someone from the 1600s might understand the term "flying machine" (which was a well-known word in use in research and "science fiction" at that time).

No, they don't convey the sense of danger, I agree. But "light-emitter" would be worse than "it radiates death/evil", imho