• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

Java Man said:
I might suck at math, but you fail to point out in your statement that the limit isn't a clear cut value. But one arrived at by statistics. On the average that will happen, but some will me more resistant and some less fortunate.

You're also comparing it to a plant worker. So you're comparing a child's susceptibility to the max rating of one who's meant to work in the middle of it all.
Click to expand...

It is a clear cut value, it's based on the build-up in radiation from drinking each glass of milk. If you drank 58,000 glasses of the milk, it would raise your odds of getting cancer by 4%.

Radiation isn't a statistics game. There isn't 1 glass in 58,000 that will give you a 4% increased chance of cancer, it's an additive game, after 58,000 glasses, you'll have absorbed enough radiation that you'll have a 4% increased chance. Simple?
 
Java Man said:
Now let's bring it down to non-radiation workers.

Limit is 1uS not 50uS. All of a sudden your 58,000 glasses of milk become 1,000. Your 160 years become 3 years.

And then there's the little itsy bitsy detail of the difference between radioactive iodine on the skin and in the thyroid.
Click to expand...

The 58,000 glass is the amount that will increase your chances of getting cancer by 4%

1,000 glasses would just double your yearly normal exposure if you drank them all in one year, and do nothing else.

The I-131 content will be gone all but in 3 months anyway, so it wouldn't even last at that activity for a year, let alone three of them.
 
PhantomWolf said:
The I-131 content will be gone all but in 3 months anyway, so it wouldn't even last at that activity for a year, let alone three of them.
Click to expand...

Well if it's gone in 3 months anyway, why is it deemed so toxic to the thyroid? You seem to have the cure to I-131 poisoning. Just wait three months.
 
Oh, and if you didn't take your Iodine tablets and did get Thyriod cancer from exposure and drinking all that milk, they'd likely cure it by injecting you with I-131, which is one of the main radialogoical treatments for Thyroid Cancer.
 
Java Man said:
Well if it's gone in 3 months anyway, why is it deemed so toxic to the thyroid? You seem to have the cure to I-131 poisoning. Just wait three months.
Click to expand...

The prevention for it is to take KI tablets for about three months in the affected areas. With a half-life of 8 days, after 90 days its activity level will be 0.048% of it's starting value.
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
Now let's bring it down to non-radiation workers.

Limit is 1uS not 50uS. All of a sudden your 58,000 glasses of milk become 1,000. Your 160 years become 3 years.

And then there's the little itsy bitsy detail of the difference between radioactive iodine on the skin and in the thyroid.
Click to expand...

You do know, do you, that milk doesn't hold that long, right? I mean, fresh milk is good for only a few days. Are you really thinking that some stock of milk will last for 3 years?

And you also know what these iodine pills are for, right?

But i guess that facts are just too boring, compared to the sensational reporting.

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: See, playing with numbers is a fun thing. But you just can not ignore reality. Go ahead, calculate 3 years of consumption of that milk. Then try to stock that milk for these three years. Let us know when you have food poisoning way before the three years are passed. We will send you some flowers then.
 
Last edited:
Calculate your radiation dose; http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/calculate.html

My annual is 316.219 mREM, 3.16 mSv.

Now, how much was I exposed to via milk due to Cold War nuclear tests? This calculates I-131 dosage and thyroid cancer risk; https://ntsi131.nci.nih.gov/

Mine was 0.46 rad. Rad is approximately REM (the definitions differ a little,) so approximately 4.6 mSv

ETA;

The nci site says this about my risk;

The best estimate of your risk of developing thyroid cancer from today forward is 1.2 chances in 1,000. Therefore, you have about 999 chances in 1,000 of not developing thyroid cancer.

By comparison, if you had not been exposed to I-131 in NTS fallout, your risk would be 1.2 chances in 1,000. Thus, your risk of developing thyroid cancer is not distinguishable from the risk had you not been exposed, due to either a low dose or because you were exposed as an adult.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
The prevention for it is to take KI tablets for about three months in the affected areas. With a half-life of 8 days, after 90 days its activity level will be 0.048% of it's starting value.
Click to expand...

Any pills you'd recommend for the cesium? I also heard that there is plutonium in reactor 3. Are there pills for that?
 
Christian Klippel said:
But you just can not ignore reality.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm doing. Not ignoring reality. In reality people are allowed 1uS not 50. In reality ingested iodine is considerably more toxic than powdered on your skin. In reality iodine in a mothers bloodstream goes to her breasts and uterus and into a baby if she's pregnant or lactating.
 
Java Man said:
That's exactly what I'm doing. Not ignoring reality. In reality people are allowed 1uS not 50. In reality ingested iodine is considerably more toxic than powdered on your skin. In reality iodine in a mothers bloodstream goes to her breasts and uterus and into a baby if she's pregnant or lactating.
Click to expand...

And in reality fresh milk still does not hold for three years. In reality there is still lots of oil in the oceans from all the spills. In reality there are still thousands of people dying each year from coal. In reality there are still people getting killed in traffic accidents. In reality ....

Really, if you want to be 100% safe, don't get born. In fact, the risk is already there before you are born. A 100% risk-free life means no life at all. Get over it.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Christian Klippel said:
In reality there is still lots of oil in the oceans from all the spills.
Click to expand...

Yup and its due to the same reason. Noticed how the Macondo technology of last year was just the same as the Ixtoc technology of the late 70's?

I mean not the drilling technology. The emergency response technology.

Did your see how it could have been prevented by a piece of hardware that wasn't placed because there were "cost issues involved"?

Did you see how they didn't have the robot subs at hand just in case?

Did you see how that dome they made took so long to weld? Because they didn't have it prefabricated, just in case. Because just like the robots and the valve there were "cost issues involved".

Did your realize how they said it was so safe? It wouldn't happen.

Do you see the pattern here? I ask you how much radiation is enough before you start getting concerned? At what point do you say stop, spend on security. If you don't call it stops here, while it is less hazardous, how do you expect to call it stops later when we're used to radiation? Just like we're used to oil spills.

Are you telling us that you're ok with maximizing profit at the expense of security until things really get bad. You don't see a profit cap in which the percentage increase in profit is absurdly less than the security risk? A point that its not even safe to be anywhere near because every million dollars is so expensive risk wise. BP almost bought the farm because it saved $500,000.00 on a valve. And it destroyed the livelihood of many Americans in the process (not to mention the stock of the investor). How are we supposed to believe in the "security policies" of companies who will put they're own existence at risk?
 
Java Man said:
How are we supposed to believe in the "security policies" of companies who will put they're own existence at risk?
Click to expand...

We all take risks with our existence. When I get in a car I am taking a risk that another vehicle isn't going to hit mine. When I walk to work I take a risk that a out of control car isn't going to come up onto the footpath (sidewalk) or that I'm not going to trip while walking in front of a truck. When eat my dinner I'm taking a risk that those that sold it to me followed the regulations. When I fly I take a risk that the plane is well maintained and will not fail.

Life is risk, and ay some point we all have to weight the cost vs the reward and the level of risk, then decide if the risk is worth it.
 
PhantomWolf said:
You planning on eating food produced in the reactor?
Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear the only way to get plutonium poisoning was through spinach. Always though plutonium was easy to oxidize, peal off and spontaneously burn in the atmosphere. Being rather toxic if inhaled. But now that you've shown us it can only be toxic through spinach grown in the core I feel safer already.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Life is risk, and ay some point we all have to weight the cost vs the reward and the level of risk, then decide if the risk is worth it.
Click to expand...

Life is in itself full of risks. That's why it needs no help from reckless companies like I mentioned.
 
Java Man said:
I'm glad to hear the only way to get plutonium poisoning was through spinach. Always though plutonium was easy to oxidize, peal off and spontaneously burn in the atmosphere. Being rather toxic if inhaled. But now that you've shown us it can only be toxic through spinach grown in the core I feel safer already.
Click to expand...

Exactly how would it have gotten out of the core?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom