• 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?

Sword_Of_Truth said:
Not for you, at least.These two experts meet the standards you demanded. They are both qualified nuclear engineers and have designed, built and operated nuclear reactors.
Click to expand...

Which is like listening to a coal plant engineer tell me why safe mercury levels should be raised.
 
r-j said:
Still ignoring my simple point that raising the safe limits a thousand times is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Bull. What you mean to say is that we haven't yet responded to your point du jour; by this afternoon it will be a different point, and answering this will make us late for your next tail gate party.

Your "simple point" was that raising the maximum allowed amount of instantaneous radiation allowed to be absorbed by a power plant employee by a thousand is ridiculous. This is, of course, a fabulous straw man; Dr Alison, the author of the thousand x adjustment, has been demonstrated, by actual video, to have said that the 1000x applies to the EPA standard yearly dose applied to non-atomic workers at large. The current limit is 1 mSv/yr, he thinks it could be raised to 100 mSv/month, emphasizing the stated requirement that it be a continuous dose over a length of time, not an instantaneous one. The limit for the worker in an emergency is 50 mSv per year. It is well known that if a worker receives such a dose it is not continuous, but something he likely received in a hour or less; if it were continuous, the management would have to have fixed the problem.

You knew this, I discussed it above 4 days ago, including remarks about how it was originally derived and why it is the value it is, and you made no rebuttal about it at that time or since, until today. This shows that you were not swayed, which is OK, but you could not argue your point. The principles of fair argumentation should have kept you from bringing it up again unless you have something new and substantive to say; it is old, has been debunked in your face, and you cannot respond meaningfully. That didn't stop you from bringing it up 4 days later as if you'd been defending it all along.

This sort of argument is dishonest and disingenuous. If you cannot just admit that you made a trifling error in understanding Alison's remark and let it go, or at least restate it so it is corrected and carry on, then you could have the grace to simply let it lie.

What is your argument for the ridiculousness of the proposal? Have you tried such a dose out on anyone, such as yourself? Do you have documentation about anyone having received continuous dosage at that rate who eventually suffered ARS? Or is it just your gut feeling? Frankly, I was a bit floored by the proposal; before anything like that is implemented I'd want to see a concrete study which endorses it specifically. But ridiculous is not the adjective I'd use.

Well?
 
r-j said:
Which is like listening to a coal plant engineer tell me why safe mercury levels should be raised.
Click to expand...

See? What did I say? I no sooner answer your simple point then it grows wings and a totally new simple point replaces it.

Who, exactly, do you want to do the engineering analysis for you, r-j? Greenpeace? The EPA? Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinijad, a civil engineer of some repute? I can find no indication that Rockwell have ever worked for nuclear interests other than the government; that of course, doesn't say it isn't so, but I await your documentation of that. Or perhaps you think it is something subtler; an engineering education, perhaps, which contains a perfidious link to evil profits.

Really, r-j, tell us who it is you believe, since you don't have a technical education yourself. It has to be someone.
 
I'm sure everybody is simply waiting to hear my ill informed conclusions. Fortunately science doesn't depend on personality, or who can type the most into a forum.
 
Regarding safety, the yearly allowed dose of radiation was changed from 30 rems to 5 rems, for people exposed to radiation at work. (50mSv)

In 1934 it was 30 rems. That is 300mSv. A year. In 30 years that is 9 Sieverts. We know from the handy chart that 8 is deadly. We also know, from theory, that over time the damage is about half. So it would actually take almost 60 years of 30rems a year to be sure you die.

Now The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and other U.S. and international agencies, require that licensees limit radiation exposure to individual members of the public to 1 mSv (100 mrem) per year. (source:wikipedia)

If you raise the limit by a thousand times, that would be 1 sievert a year, for the public. Which is, by odd coincidence, .1125 mSv/hr, or 2.5 microsieverts an hour. The level of radiation in the areas of Japan they don't want anyone going into. The more dangerous areas are 12 to 20 microSv/hr

Deadly? Not for many years, according to the theory. You could live there for 8 years before you should die, except if it half as dangerous spread out over time, 16 years before you can be sure of being dead.

From radiation.

This assumes exposure, not eating it, breathing it, that sort of thing. I think. We still don't have any sources, studies or peer reviewed literature to look at, to know exactly what happens. At what level, over what period of time.
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
I'm sure everybody is simply waiting to hear my ill informed conclusions. Fortunately science doesn't depend on personality, or who can type the most into a forum.
Click to expand...

Wonderful. Now how about something substantive?

Perhaps you want that I should tie my thumbs behind my hands to even the score? :)
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
Regarding safety, the yearly allowed dose of radiation was changed from 30 rems to 5 rems, for people exposed to radiation at work. (50mSv)

In 1934 it was 30 rems. That is 300mSv. A year. In 30 years that is 9 Sieverts. We know from the handy chart that 8 is deadly. We also know, from theory, that over time the damage is about half. So it would actually take almost 60 years of 30rems a year to be sure you die.
Click to expand...

No, "we" know nothing of a sort; xkcd's chart mentions that fact, but we have no examples whatsoever of anyone absorbing 8 Sv or radiation in any other time interval other than less than a day. None. I know of no conversion from a single event dose (say, within the length of a day) and a continuous dose, because the continuous case has never been encountered. If you have a citation for being able to say that "We also know, from theory, that over time the damage is about half", experimental or theoretical, I would be grateful. Wikipedia, in "Ionizing radiation", says: "People in some parts of Ramsar, a city in northern Iran, receive an annual absorbed dose from background radiation that is up to 260 mSv/a. Despite having lived for many generations in these high-background areas, inhabitants of Ramsar show no significant cytogenetic differences compared to people in normal background areas.[16] This has led to the suggestion that high but steady levels of radiation are easier for humans to sustain than sudden radiation bursts.[ my emphasis]" Note that they give no conversion either, just "easier to sustain". This "be[ing] sure you die" of an 8 sievert dose over 60 years is pure guesswork.

Now The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and other U.S. and international agencies, require that licensees limit radiation exposure to individual members of the public to 1 mSv (100 mrem) per year. (source:wikipedia)

If you raise the limit by a thousand times, that would be 1 sievert a year, for the public. Which is, by odd coincidence, .1125 mSv/hr, or 2.5 microsieverts an hour.
Click to expand...

Woops, what's that? 1 Sv/yr = .1125 mSv/hr (actually .1141 mSv/hr, but that's OK) but that is not 2.5 uSv/hr; it's 114.1 uSv/hr, or just under 2 uSv/min, whatever significance that may have. Right? What coincidence?

The level of radiation in the areas of Japan they don't want anyone going into. The more dangerous areas are 12 to 20 microSv/hr

Deadly? Not for many years, according to the theory. You could live there for 8 years before you should die, except if it half as dangerous spread out over time, 16 years before you can be sure of being dead.

From radiation.

This assumes exposure, not eating it, breathing it, that sort of thing. I think. We still don't have any sources, studies or peer reviewed literature to look at, to know exactly what happens. At what level, over what period of time.
Click to expand...

I have to point out to you that the Chernobyl Forum has not been able to find any indication, 24 years after the explosion, of any increased cancers in the Russia, Belarus or the Ukraine except for thyroid cancers. No statistical bump in newborn deficiencies. This is the smoking gun that has started the inquiry into the possibility of hormesis. That is the level, over that period of time.
 
Last night I considered the implications of long term low dose of radiation, not being nearly as bad as it was once assumed.

The coal companies will love that. Since it means they low levels of uranium they release can't be used as evidence against them. (not that I can find any lawsuits against them at all)

In fact, just about every single person who profits by polluting will love that bit of science. "Oh it's just a little at a time, it's not the same as if we gave it to you all at once!"

Smokers will also go "We told you so!"
 
shadron said:
"People in some parts of Ramsar, a city in northern Iran, receive an annual absorbed dose from background radiation that is up to 260 mSv/a. Despite having lived for many generations in these high-background areas, inhabitants of Ramsar show no significant cytogenetic differences compared to people in normal background areas.[16]
Click to expand...

The 222Rn levels were measured by using the AEOI passive radon diffusion chambers indoors of about 500 houses in two separate studies in autumn and in winter, and also in some locations outdoors. The 222Rn and its progeny and equilibrium factors were also determined indoors and outdoors of some buildings by the active Pylon AB-5 system based on which the effective equivalent dose (E) of the public was determined.
Click to expand...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S053151310401742X

So they never did any testing on people, or animals, to see what the level of radium or radon they breathed in. Or any experiments at all. They measured high radon levels (due to the high radium there), and assumed what the exposure must be.
 
Lol, haha.

Hey, r-j, here's a question for you:

If a was to build a radiation source, which would release 1mS/hr of radiation in one direction, and i would put you in front of that, what would be the dose you are exposed to in 1 hour?

Come on, you can do it!

Once you got the answer right, go back to your post #3310 and think deeply about why it is nonsense you have written there.

Greetings,

Chris
 
I remember hearing about radiation at the plant gate (which was the closest point anyone was left to measure anything) being 400 mSv/hr. I remember it because on the TV it sounded like 400 million sieverts, and not knowing what a sievert was, it still sounded bad. Considering everyone (the workers and Emergency responders) had evacuated miles away, due to a huge explosion.

jbjr said:
Updated information from the IAEA. Without the fearmongering.

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Update

Radiation Dose Rates Observed at the Site

As reported earlier, a 400 millisieverts (mSv) per hour radiation dose observed at Fukushima Daiichi occurred between units 3 and 4. This is a high dose-level value, but it is a local value at a single location and at a certain point in time. The IAEA continues to confirm the evolution and value of this dose rate. It should be noted that because of this detected value, non-indispensible staff was evacuated from the plant, in line with the Emergency Response Plan, and that the population around the plant is already evacuated.
Click to expand...

So what would the dose be if somebody put a 400 mSv dose in front of you?

The answer depends on distance of course.
 
r-j said:
Last night I considered the implications of long term low dose of radiation, not being nearly as bad as it was once assumed.

The coal companies will love that. Since it means they low levels of uranium they release can't be used as evidence against them. (not that I can find any lawsuits against them at all)

In fact, just about every single person who profits by polluting will love that bit of science. "Oh it's just a little at a time, it's not the same as if we gave it to you all at once!"

Smokers will also go "We told you so!"
Click to expand...

Ya know what? I don't give a damn. Unlike you, I don't think that consideration is of the least importance or relevance to our argument.

The most important thing about a fact is that it is either true or false. The substance matters, but it's opinion unless you can nail it down with evidence replicable by any die-hard, let alone a disinterested third party. It is not important what the coal companies think of the PR value of the fact. If it's proven true, then it is true, even if being so invokes the devil from hell.

You cannot build any kind of logical argument based on "how do the coal companies feel about this?". All you can build is an editorial.

However, other than the case for radiation, everyone else has to build their own case, and I think that might be weak. Radiation is somewhat unique in its ability to affect the whole body (including the whole of the distributed immune system), not just the lungs or the digestive tract or the cardiovascular system. I'm sure any intern could poke other holes in that argument wrt tobacco smoke, in particular.
 
r-j said:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S053151310401742X
The 222Rn levels were measured by using the AEOI passive radon diffusion chambers indoors of about 500 houses in two separate studies in autumn and in winter, and also in some locations outdoors. The 222Rn and its progeny and equilibrium factors were also determined indoors and outdoors of some buildings by the active Pylon AB-5 system based on which the effective equivalent dose (E) of the public was determined.
Click to expand...

So they never did any testing on people, or animals, to see what the level of radium or radon they breathed in. Or any experiments at all. They measured high radon levels (due to the high radium there), and assumed what the exposure must be.
Click to expand...

I don't think the report, or at least the part you quoted, says what you're trying to say it said. It says nothing about their testing methods, including trial controls or other protocol, yet it infers that they did do some testing because of the result they offer. Since I'm certainly no richer than you, all we have is the wikipedias's words and the abstract.
 
r-j said:
Gamma, alpha or beta radiation? Or x-rays?
Click to expand...

r-j, the concept of equivalent dose (as opposed to radiation rate, in becquerels or curies, and absorbed dose in rads or grays), of which Sieverts (REMs) is the specific unit of measure, has been adjusted for both the radiation type (and you didn't mention neutrons, btw, important around a reactor) and also for the category of body parts that are irradiated. Look up sieverts in wikipedia.

For example, 1 gray of alpha radiation resulting in x sieverts is the same dose as 20 grays of beta radiation, also x sieverts, because individual beta particles have been judged about 20 times less harmful than an alpha particle. That is why you can say 8 Sv is a killing dose, because it has been normalized so that the type of radiation and where it is impinging on the body have been taken into account.
 
If the radiation source is alpha radiation, distance matters a whole lot more than if it is beta. To know a source is 100 mSv/hr, you have to include the distance from the source.

Which is why they use becquerels per Kilo to describe radioactivity in soil and water and so forth.

Radon is dangerous because it is breathed into the lungs, not just standing near it. Or bathing in it. (radioactive hot springs!)

I hope low doses are beneficial. That would be great.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom