Talk:Ionizing radiation/Archive 2014

Understanding which part of the opening sentence applies to which other part (from a non-scientist)

The opening sentence currently is:

Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is composed of subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at relativistic speeds, or electromagnetic waves on the short wavelength end of the electromagnetic spectrum that carry enough energy to liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them.

The problem is that, due to the grammatical rule of apposition, I can't tell which part of this sentence modifies or doesn't modify other parts. So in the end, I can't tell how many types of ionizing radiation there are. (WP states: "Apposition is a grammatical construction in which two elements, normally noun phrases, are placed side by side, with one element serving to define or modify the other.")

If one of the following rewrites is correct, please say so here and then change it in the article. If not, please discuss. Sorry that all I can do is this, but my chronic illness probably won't let me return here, so thanks in advance. My edits are in italics, and the numbers are there to help discussion, of course.

1. Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is composed of either subatomic particles (ions or atoms moving at relativistic speeds) or electromagnetic waves on the short wavelength end of the electromagnetic spectrum (those waves that carry enough energy to liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them).

2. Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is composed of one of following three forms: subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at relativistic speeds, or electromagnetic waves on the short wavelength end of the electromagnetic spectrum. These three forms carry enough energy to liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them.

In 2, I couldn't in my ignorance come up with a better collective term than "forms" so please provide a term that shows the commonality among them.

3. Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is composed of one of following three forms: subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at relativistic speeds, or electromagnetic waves on the short wavelength end of the electromagnetic spectrum (those waves that carry enough energy to liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them).

3 is the same as 2 except that "carry enough energy..." applies only to the last form, not to all three forms.

I really hope this helps! If it does, please let me know so I can get more of those happy endorphins in my system. Heh! --Geekdiva (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The opening sentence should definitely be made clearer and simpler! (2) is the correct interpretation, but it should probably be simplified further. Something like:

Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is radiation composed of particles or electromagnetic waves that carry enough kinetic energy to liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them.

To me at least, this makes it clear enough that "carry enough" modifies both. But I guess we can simplify it even further:

Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is radiation that carries enough energy to liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them.

If we merge this with the current opening paragraph:

Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is radiation that carries enough energy to liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them. Ionizing radiation comprises subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at relativistic speeds, and electromagnetic waves on the short wavelength end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Gamma rays, X-rays, and the upper vacuum ultraviolet part of the ultraviolet spectrum are ionizing, whereas the lower ultraviolet, visible light (including laser light), infrared, microwaves, and radio waves are considered non-ionizing radiation.

This should be both accessible and accurate enough for the lead. Kolbasz (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This looks good. Let's do it!

When I came to this lead about a month ago it had two contradictory definitions that had been there for a while, so its good now to see some critical discussion.

I will change it now.Dougsim (talk)